JAPANESE SAUNA Trustee faults court's ruling

Township trustees should not have revoked the parlor's license two years ago.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- An appellate court's decision allowing a massage parlor to remain open rubbed Austintown Township Trustee David Ditzler the wrong way.
"It's unfortunate that the courts fail to view things with common sense as an average person would," Ditzler said.
In a ruling handed down Tuesday, the 7th District Court of Appeals affirmed a January 2001 ruling in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court that said township trustees were wrong when they revoked the license of the Japanese Sauna in February 2000.
The township appealed the ruling to the court of appeals more than 13 months ago. Ditzler hadn't read the appellate court's opinion, but said he's inclined to seek a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court as long as it doesn't create a financial burden for taxpayers.
What happened: The township revoked the Mahoning Avenue sauna's permit in February 2000 after a woman at the business pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution and being an unlicensed masseuse.
The woman, who has since left the area, was accused of offering to perform a sex act for money for an undercover police officer.
The massage parlor's former owner argued that the woman, Myong Teel, was not an employee of the business. Attorneys said she had come to town a few days earlier and was staying in a room at the business until she could get a masseuse license.
Not an employee: The parlor's position was upheld in common pleas court, where the judge ruled there was no evidence that Teel actually worked there.
"If Teel was not an employee, there was no basis upon which the trustees would revoke the massage parlor's license," Judge Cheryl Waite wrote in her 18-page decision.
"That was the key," said Atty. Robert Rohrbaugh, who represented the massage parlor. "It all boiled down to whether Myong Teel was an employee. She was not, so they can't take the license."
Ditzler called that finding "bizarre" and said it was clear that Teel worked at the massage parlor. Trustees argued in court documents that Teel was being paid with free room and board instead of money.
In writing the appellate court's decision, Judge Waite acknowledged that "the evidence was certainly not uncontroverted and could be interpreted differently," but that Ohio law requires the appellate court to give deference to the common pleas ruling.
She said Teel's guilty plea could not be used against the massage parlor since it wasn't named as a party in her criminal case.
bjackson@vindy.com