|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Article Index » ohio: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link Ohio Supreme Court Avoids Deciding Whether Women Must be Given Lactation Breaks.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 29, 2009 Deciding that an employer terminated an employee for unauthorized breaks, and therefore upholding summary judgment for the employer, the Supreme Court of Ohio has avoided answering the question whether Ohio’s fair employment practice law prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Report Link Ohio Closer to Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 28, 2009 The Ohio House of Representatives has passed a bill prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” under many Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) laws. The bill is now under consideration in the Ohio Senate. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate on September 17, 2009. Report Link Ohio Age Discrimination Law Claim Barred by Arbitration Award Sustaining Employee's Dismissal.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 14, 2009 The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that employees are prohibited from pursuing a claim for age discrimination under a section of Ohio’s fair employment practice statute (Revised Code § 4112.99) when a discharge has been arbitrated and found to be for “just cause.” Meyer v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104 (2009). The Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity for age discrimination claims under Ohio law. Report Link Ohio Appeals Decision Highlights the Necessity of a Carefully Drafted Drug-Free Workplace Policy.Baker Hostetler LLP - August 13, 2009 An Ohio appellate court recently granted an employee’s application for temporary total disability benefits, despite the employee’s positive post-injury drug test. The court based its decision on the language of the employer’s drug-free workplace policy which varies from that of the Ohio Revised Code. This decision—State of Ohio ex rel. Clevenger v. Ohio Staff Leasing, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 08AP-828, 2009-Ohio-3085 (issued June 25, 2009) (“Clevenger”)—raises issues Ohio employers should consider when drafting a drug and alcohol policy. Report Link Ohio Supreme Court Restricts the Application of Ohio's Prevailing Wage Law.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 30, 2009 Ohio's prevailing wage law requires contractors for public improvement projects to pay workers the so-called prevailing wage in the locality where the project is to be performed. In order for a project to qualify as a public improvement, it must be constructed by or benefit a public authority. Examples of public improvements include roads, streets, buildings, water works, and any other project or structure constructed by or for a public authority. Report Link Ohio Mini-COBRA Amendments and Coordination with Federal Stimulus Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 11, 2009 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), amended the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”), among other things, to provide a premium subsidy for certain individuals who lose health coverage in connection with an involuntary termination of employment on or after September 1, 2008. In addition, the Act extends the premium subsidy to individuals who were covered under a small health plan not subject to COBRA but subject to state law mandating certain continuation coverage (commonly referred to as “mini-COBRA”). On April 1, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland, signed H.B. 2, amending Ohio’s mini-COBRA statute (Ohio Revised Code §3923.38 and §1751.53) to allow individuals covered under small health plans to take full advantage of the federal subsidy. Report Link Age Discrimination Claims Under Ohio Law May Be Barred By Internal Grievance Process.Baker Hostetler LLP - June 10, 2009 On June 2, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court held that an age discrimination claim filed by a former employee of United Parcel Systems (“UPS”) was barred because an earlier internal “arbitration” proceeding found that the employee had been terminated for just cause. The Court’s decision in Meyer v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-2463, highlights the importance of an appropriate internal grievance process in defending a lawsuit alleging age discrimination and offers clarification on Ohio’s unique statutory framework for age discrimination claims. Report Link Handshakes Are Not Necessarily Handshakes in Ohio: Oral Contracts Are Not Worth the Paper They Are Written On.Baker Hostetler LLP - May 18, 2009 The Ohio Supreme Court, in Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd. (May 7, 2009), Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-2057, departed from 185 years of precedent by holding that a party seeking to enforce an unsigned contract, in this case a joint venture agreement, could not rely on the other party’s promise to sign the agreement to overcome the statute of frauds—a law barring enforcement of contracts not to be performed within one year unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the other party. Instead of allowing recovery for breach of contract, the Court held that a separate claim of promissory estoppel was an adequate remedy for any damages incurred in relying on a false promise to sign an agreement. This decision has implications for legal liability arising in contract negotiations, failed transactions, and situations where parties perform in the absence of a signed, written contract. Report Link Ohio Employers Must Provide Leave for Pregnant Employees, Regardless of Internal Policy.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 12, 2009 Ohio’s anti-discrimination law, the Ohio Civil Rights Act, prohibits employers in Ohio from discriminating against it employees “because of sex”, among other things. “Because of sex” is defined to include pregnancy and any illness arising out of and occurring during the course of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. These provisions of the Act are similar to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) provision of Title VII. Report Link Ohio "Celebrates" the Ten-Year Anniversary of Genaro.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 04, 2009 This year marks the tenth anniversary of what has proven to be one of the most disturbing decisions in recent Ohio employment law history. In 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Genaro v. Cent. Transport, Inc., 84 Ohio St.3d 293, that individual supervisors and managers can be held jointly and severally liable with the employer for the discriminatory conduct of the supervisor or manager.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 10NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Top Tips to Protect Your Workplace From Violence
Webinar
November 10, 2009 HR Learning Center LLCWorkplace Change in the Obama EraColumbus
November 10, 2009 Littler2009 Employment Practices ConferenceUniversal City
November 10, 2009 Ballard RosenbergFall Employment Law Mini-SeriesTysons Corner
November 10, 2009 LittlerBusiness Continuity During the H1N1 OutbreakWebinar
November 10, 2009 Littler"Action Steps for Upcoming Open Enrollment" Free E-BriefingWebinar
November 10, 2009 Ford & HarrisonLabor and Employment Law SeminarLos Angeles
November 11, 2009 OgletreeHR Network 2009 | RestonReston
November 12, 2009 CooleyThe Labor & Employment Compliance Costs of Federal ContractingWebinar
November 12, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyLa Jolla
November 12, 2009 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds