Share This Article
Article Summary
Former Milford High School athletic director Aaron Zupka has sued Milford Exempted Village Schools and its human resources director following his termination over allegations involving sponsorship funds and student safety. An independent hearing referee recommended reinstating Zupka after finding that the established violations did not justify termination. The school district had already hired a replacement, and its response to the recommendation remains an important development to verify. The lawsuit’s specific claims and requested relief should be confirmed using the court filing.
Former Milford High School athletic director Aaron Zupka has sued Milford Exempted Village Schools and its human resources director after his termination over allegations involving sponsorship funds and student safety.
The lawsuit follows an independent hearing referee’s recommendation that the district reinstate Zupka, whose dismissal stemmed from a series of disputed allegations.
What prompted the lawsuit?
Zupka’s employment dispute began after the Milford school district investigated his handling of athletic department finances and reports of potential misconduct involving coaches and students.
In January 2026, the Milford Board of Education voted to suspend Zupka without pay and initiate proceedings to terminate his employment contract. The district cited allegations involving sponsorship funds, financial documentation and his response to potential child-safety concerns.
According to the district’s termination resolution, Zupka allegedly directed at least $91,000 in sponsorship payments to the Milford Athletic Boosters rather than the school board. The resolution also questioned his documentation of purchases made using a booster-provided credit card.
The district further alleged that Zupka failed to escalate reports concerning possible sexual misconduct involving coaches and student-athletes. Zupka disputed the allegations through his attorney, who said he intended to pursue available legal remedies.
These allegations remain distinct from findings made during the employment appeal and should not be treated as established criminal wrongdoing.
Referee recommends reinstating Zupka
An independent hearing referee recommended on Oct. 8, 2026, that Milford schools reinstate Zupka as athletic director. The recommendation followed his challenge to the district’s decision to terminate his contract.
According to reporting by The Cincinnati Enquirer, the referee found that only some of the cited violations had been established. He concluded that the proven conduct, even when considered together, did not justify termination under the applicable Ohio law.
The referee characterized certain conduct as lapses in judgment and technical violations. His review included questions about the handling of confidential student information, the acceptance of sponsor-provided hockey tickets and the response to reports of potential misconduct.
The recommendation did not automatically restore Zupka to his former position. Under Ohio law, the school board could accept or reject the referee’s recommendation, with further legal proceedings possible if the board rejected it.
Milford schools had already hired a replacement
The employment dispute continued while the district reorganized its athletic leadership. Milford schools hired Mark Trout to serve as athletic director beginning in July 2026, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer.
That appointment complicates the practical implications of the referee’s recommendation. Although the referee recommended reinstatement, the district had already filled the position.
The lawsuit against the district and its human resources director introduces a separate legal issue involving Zupka’s claims about his treatment and the allegations made against him. The specific claims, requested damages and procedural status should be confirmed against the court complaint before publication.
School board decision could shape next steps
The school board’s response to the referee’s recommendation is an important development to track. Any subsequent decision could affect Zupka’s employment status and the next steps in the dispute.
The lawsuit also creates a separate process for resolving the parties’ legal claims. Its outcome will depend on the allegations formally presented in court, the evidence and any rulings issued by the court.
The case raises questions about school financial oversight, employee accountability and the procedures districts follow when investigating potential student-safety concerns.
The distinction between allegations, administrative findings and final legal decisions remains important as the case develops.
FAQs
Are the allegations against Zupka criminal charges?
The employment allegations reported in connection with the district’s termination proceedings should not automatically be described as criminal charges. Any claim that criminal charges were filed would need separate confirmation from official law enforcement or court records.
Can a school board reject a hearing referee’s recommendation?
Yes. Under the applicable Ohio school employment procedures, a school board may review a referee’s findings and recommendation before making its decision. The board’s action may also be subject to further legal review, depending on the circumstances.
How much money was involved in the allegations against Zupka?
The district’s termination proceedings included allegations involving approximately $91,000 in sponsorship payments. The allegations concerned how the funds were handled and whether the money should have been directed to the school board rather than the Milford Athletic Boosters.
