News

On December 19, 2014, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed House Bill 5 into law. The bill’s aim is to streamline municipal tax codes in order to make it easier for businesses to file local tax returns. In Ohio, municipalities that have adopted a charter are permitted to pass their own laws, and as a result, many charter municipalities also have a local tax code, causing the tax codes to vary from charter municipality to charter municipality. Proponents of the bill argued that this made it very confusing for businesses that operate in multiple cities, often requiring them to hire accountants just to fill out local tax forms. The exact impact of the bill on Ohio’s municipalities is currently unclear, but many municipalities estimate that they will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in local tax revenue as a result of [...]

Two recent court rulings have provided further guidance on First Amendment protection for public employees. Both cases involve allegations from public employees that they were fired in violation of their First Amendment rights. In June of 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Lane v. Frank, which clarified free speech rights for public employees. Lane was an administrator at an Alabama community college. Lane was terminated after he was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury and later at the criminal prosecution of a former employee of the college. Lane sued the college claiming he was terminated in violation of his First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that the First Amendment protects a public employee who is subpoenaed and truthfully testifies where the testimony is outside the employee’s duties. According [...]

Beginning January 1, 2015 the Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes information reporting requirements on employers. The purpose of the employer reporting requirements is to provide verification to the IRS that health insurance with minimal essential coverage was offered to employees and to provide verification that the employee either accepted or denied the coverage. The IRS will use this information to administer the employer responsibility provisions and premium tax credits of the ACA. The employer reporting requirements are found in Internal Revenue Code Sections 6055 and 6056. Pursuant to Section 6056, large employers are required to provide information to the IRS regarding the terms and conditions of health plan coverage offered to their full time employees. (Form 1094-C) Additionally, the employer is required to provide each employee with a written statement that includes information related to that employee and their dependents [...]

On December 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on issues related to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The issue the court will decide is: “Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are ‘similar in their ability or inability to work.’” As discussed in FHKA’s October issue, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released a number of guidelines regarding the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) in July of this year. The Guidelines require that employers treat employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition similarly to other employees who are not pregnant but are similarly unable to perform their jobs, whether by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, leave, or other [...]

On December, 9, 2014, the court issued its decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. The Court ruled that the employer need not compensate warehouse workers for time spent passing through security screenings at the end of their shifts. The employer required its warehouse workers who retrieved inventory and packaged it for shipment, to undergo an antitheft security screening before leaving each day. Federal law requires all employees to be compensated for time that they work for the employer. However, federal law exempts employers from compensating employees for activities which are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to employees’ “principal activities.” The Court found that the security screenings at issue were non-compensable postliminary activities. The screenings were not the principal activities which the employees were employed to perform. Integrity Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo security screenings, but to retrieve [...]