News

On March 18, 2015, National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Richard Griffin issued a report concerning the employee handbook provisions under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). His agency investigates and remedies violations of the NLRA, a federal law that governs labor relations in many private companies. Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have a federally protected right to engage in certain “concerted activities” for the purpose of obtaining union representation and/or collectively bargaining with their employees for wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment. Section 7 has been construed to permit criticisms by employees of management, dissemination of employee information and other acts employers have not traditionally tolerated. The NLRB has held that a work rule may violate the NLRA if the rule has a chilling effect on employee Section 7 activity. Mr. Giffin notes that the [...]

FHKA recently received a favorable decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upholding the dismissal of sex and national origin discrimination claims. In Voltz v. Erie County, Mr. Voltz, a Hispanic male, was promoted over female applicants to the position of Director of the County Department of Job and Family Services. Months after his promotion, Voltz failed to report to work after being arrested and charged with rape. Based upon the seriousness of the charges and the negative publicity such an allegation carries, the board immediately terminated Voltz’s employment. The criminal charges against Voltz were subsequently dropped and he re-applied to his former position but was rejected. Instead, a Caucasian female was awarded the recently vacant position. Voltz sued claiming discrimination based upon his gender and race. However, the trial court and the Court of Appeals [...]

Beginning in 2012, an unknown number of employees of Atlas Logistics began defecating in Atlas' Warehouse. The defecations occurred numerous times and necessitated the destruction of grocery products on at least one occasion. Atlas subjected two employees to DNA testing to determine if they were the culprits. Neither was the mystery pooper. On May 5, 2015, a federal court in Georgia held that Atlas’ testing of the two employee suspects violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). On June 22, 2015, a federal jury awarded the two employees $2.2 million. GINA was enacted May 21, 2008. GINA prohibits a broad range of invasive actions that reveal genetic information or one’s pre-disposition to health conditions such as: internet searches regarding health matters, asking health-related questions and inadvertent receipt of health information. In light of the broad spectrum of prohibitions, employers should [...]

To establish entitlement to a Violation of a Specific Safety Regulation (“VSSR) award, a Workers’ Compensation claimant must show that there is a specific safety rule (“SSR”) applicable to the employer, that the employer violated that SSR, and that the violation caused the injury. The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a one-time failure of an otherwise compliant safety system that resulted in employee injury is not a violation of a specific safety requirement (“SSR”) in the worker’s compensation system. State ex rel. Penwell v. Indus. Comm. The case involved a hydraulic press equipped with a “pullback” safety system designed to keep an operator’s hands out of the press before closing. The employer reminded employees at monthly safety meetings not to rely on the safety system alone and to remove their hands before closing the press. The employer continually [...]

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (“OPERS”) recently changed the health care coverage for re-employed retirees that will go into effect on January 1, 2016. The changes are in response to federal health care regulations that affect OPERS members who return to work for an OPERS covered employer after they’ve retired. Those re-employed by an OPERS employer are considered active public employees under federal regulations. These regulations prevent OPERS from providing reimbursements or contributing allowances to re-employed individuals’ Health Reimbursement Accounts (“HRA”) during active employment. A re-employed individual is also unable to access funds within their HRA account for expenses incurred during active employment. These changes go into effect January 1, 2016, but only apply to those OPERS retirees re-employed by OPERS employers. Coverage for those re-employed by non-OPERS employers remains unchanged. Potential impact on OPERS employers: These changes may [...]