OHIO’S MILITARY FAMILY LEAVE ACT BECOMES EFFECTIVE TODAY

Ohio's new Military Family Leave Act becomes effective today at Ohio Revised Code § 5906.01 et seq. It applies to employers, defined as "a person who employs fifty or more employees" and includes the state, and other political entities, schools, townships, counties, etc. In other words, it covers not just employers already subject to the FMLA, but also all other employers who have 50 employees – regardless of whether those employees are located at a worksite within a 75 mile radius.

Under the Act, employers must provide employees with unpaid " leave up to ten days or eighty hours, whichever is less," once per calendar year when:

• The employee has worked at least 1250 hours in the preceding twelve months and has worked for the employer for at least 12 consecutive months. (Unlike the FMLA, the employee needs to work for 12 consecutive months instead of any twelve months strung together over a number of years).
  
• The employee is the parent, spouse, or person who has had legal custody of a person
  
  • who is a member of the uniformed services and
    
  • who is called to "active duty" in the uniformed services for a period longer than 30 days OR is injured, wounded, or hospitalized while serving on active duty in the uniformed services.
    

    
    

    Active duty means full-time duty in the active federal military services or pursuant to an executive order of the U.S. President, an act of Congress or proclamation of the governor. It does NOT include active duty for training, initial active duty for training, or the period of time for which a person is absent from a position of employment for the purpose of an examination to determine the fitness of the person to perform any duty unless such period is contemporaneous with an active duty period.
    

    
    

• The employee gives the required advance notice:
  
  • When the employee is taking leave because of a call to active duty, the employee must give at least 14 days advance notice to the employer that the employee intends to take leave under this Act;
    
  • When the employee is taking leave because of an injury, wound or hospitalization, the employee must give the employer at least 2 days advance notice;
    
  • No notice must be given to an employer if the employee receives notice from a representative of the uniformed service that the injury, would, or hospitalization is of a critical or life-threatening nature.
    
• The leave takes place no more than two weeks prior to or one week after the deployment date of the employee's spouse, child or ward or former ward. (I would have to assume that leave for an injured family member is not subject to this requirement).
  
• The employee does not have any other leave available to use (other than sick or disability leave).
  

  
  

Employers may require the employee requesting leave to provide certification from the appropriate military authority to verify that the employee satisfies the above criteria.

Covered employers are required to continue providing benefits to the employee during the leave of absence, but the employee shall be responsible for the same proportion of the cost of the benefits as the employee regularly pays during non-leave periods. Employers are also required to restore the employee to the position the employee held before taking that leave with equivalent seniority, benefits, pay and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers are also prohibited from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, disciplining or discriminating against an employee regarding any term or condition of employment because of the employee's actual or potential exercise (or support for another employee's exercise) of any right under this Act. Nonetheless, employers are not otherwise prevented from taking employment action that is independent of the employee's exercise of rights under this Act.

Employees may not be required to waive their rights under this Act.

No collective bargaining agreements or benefit plans may be executed after today which limit or require an employee to waive his or her rights under this Act. However, employer must still comply with any collective bargaining agreement or benefit plan which provides leave benefits similar to those established by this Act which are greater than the leave rights provided by this Act. Indeed, an employer may provide better leave benefits than are required by this Act.

Finally, employers may be subject to a civil action for injunctive "or any other" relief that a court finds necessary to secure an employee's rights under this Act. I hear a public policy tort action coming . . . . . .

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Ohio Court of Appeals Shows that Violating a Non-Compete and Court Order Can Be More Trouble Than It’s Worth

In my experience, there are few industries where employers are more aggressive in enforcing non-competition agreements than in than beauty salons. This week, the Hamilton County Court of Appeals addressed another case involving a hair stylist who just could not say no to his former clients for the non-competition period and ended up paying a steep price for breaching his former employment agreement. Mitchells Salon & Day Spa, Inc. v. Bustle, 2010-Ohio-1880 (4/30/10).

According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant stylist began working for the employer salon soon after graduating from cosmetology school and before he had developed any clients. He signed an employment agreement with a non-competition clause barring him for one year from providing any hair styling, hair care or related services to any client which he had served at the employer at any point during his employment. After working for the employer salon for more than 12 years, he quit in August 2007 and opened his own salon. The employer became suspicious when most of the stylist’s former clients ceased patronizing the employer’s salon and filed suit in January 2008 to enforce the non-competition clause. The trial court entered a TRO in February 2008 prohibiting him from providing any beauty services to the employer’s former clients. The parties then negotiated an injunction which prohibited the stylist from providing for one year – from the date of the February 2008 injunction –any hair styling, hair care or related services to any of the employer’s clients which the stylist had ever served. He also agreed to send each of his clients a letter prepared by the salon informing them that he could no longer serve them and recommending another stylist currently employed by the salon.

The employer salon even offered these clients a discount or free service if they returned. However, it was apparently not enough to shake their loyalty to the errant hair stylist. (I can certainly relate to this). When most of the former clients did not return, the employer hired a private investigator in September 2008 which apparently confirmed that the hair stylist was continuing to routinely serve former clients of the employer. Accordingly, in December 2008 the employer filed a motion to hold him in contempt of the agreed injunction. During the April 2009 contempt hearing, the stylist admitted that he had violated the non-compete and unintentionally violated the TRO and agreed injunction because he had trouble saying “no” to his former clients. He produced a list of 180 clients whom he had served since August 2007 which had been former clients of his employer, but argued that 63 of them were procured personally by him and not by any advertising or promotional campaign by the employer. In all, he claimed that he had made a profit of approximately $37K by serving former clients of his employer in violation of the non-compete, the TRO and the injunction. In response, the employer produced evidence of 39 additional clients which were not on the stylist’s list which the PI had found on a paper calendar in the stylist’s trash.

The employer wanted to be paid for the entire lost profit of $74.1K caused by the stylist’s resignation (i.e., by taking the entire profit he had generated during his last year of employment less the cost of his commission and products) and did not limit itself to the profit lost by the 219 clients served in violation of the non-compete agreement. It also asked to be reimbursed for the $52.6K cost of the PI firm hired to uncover and prove his duplicity and $15.8K in legal fees. The trial court found the stylist in contempt, ordered the stylist to reimburse his former employer only $139K (of the requested $142.5K) and again ordered him to cease serving the clients of his former employer for one year from the date of the contempt order – i.e., until April 2010.

On appeal, the Court affirmed the contempt order. It rejected the stylist’s objections to the salon’s calculation of lost profits on the grounds that he was not provided with the underlying original documents. There is no discussion of the fact that the salon could not have lost all of the profit from his resignation when it still continued to serve and profit from some of his former clients. There is also no discussion of the fact that many – if not most -- of the disputed customers would likely refuse to return to the salon under any circumstances after learning that the salon was more interested in its profits than the condition and style of their hair. However, the court found the salon’s estimate was reasonable in light of the fact that the stylist’s list of the employer’s former clients was materially incomplete in leaving off 39 names.

The court also rejected the stylist’s objection to being required to both pay $139K and cease serving the employer’s former clients for a year. A double penalty is not something that would have been enforced if it had merely been an obligation of the contract. He felt that this was a double punishment and he should only have to pay or cease serving the clients; not both. However, the court of appeals saw it differently:

This is exactly what the trial court did here. The trial court required [the stylist] to disgorge his profits and then ordered [the stylist] to comply with the noncompete clause, which was incorporated into the trial court's agreed entry, for the period of time that [the stylist] had disobeyed the TRO and the agreed entry. These sanctions essentially put the parties in the position they would have been in if [the stylist] had abided by his original agreement for a period of one year not to serve clients to whom he had provided hairstyling services while employed at [the salon]. The extension of the agreed entry for an additional 11 months compensates [the salon] for its future loss of profits. The whole point of the noncompete clause was to give [the salon] the opportunity to retain a client base that it had built through its investment of time, money, and training. The extension gives [the salon] the benefit of its bargain. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering [the stylist] to disgorge his profits and in extending the agreed entry for an additional 11 months. The fourth assignment of error is overruled.

Thus, if the stylist had complied with his non-compete, he would have been free to serve anyone and everyone beginning in August 2008 and would not have owed anything to his former employer. Instead, by continuing to violate the non-compete after agreeing to an injunction, he was barred from serving his former clients until April 2010 and required to pay his former employer over $139K. While it is true that an employer cannot have both an injunction and damages as a matter of contract law, the court refused to permit him to benefit from violating both his contract and a court order. Therefore, he was ordered to comply with his contract, to disgorge any profit he made from violating the contract and court order and to compensate the employer for having to enforce the agreement.

Interestingly, one of the appellate judges indicated that he had sympathy for the stylist’s double penalty argument and would have preferred that the employer elect between the two remedies, but could not undo the injunction period once it had already been completed. In other words, the injunction expired before the court of appeals issued its decision.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Franklin County Court: Summary Judgment Reversed When Peer Review Privilege Might Not Apply to Protect Hospital

Last month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of Mount Carmel Hospital on a wrongful discharge claim brought by an Emergency Room physician on the grounds that the trial court improperly assumed that relevant evidence which the hospital refused to produce during discovery was protected by Ohio’s peer review privilege.

Thus, documents created by a peer review committee or exclusively for a peer review committee would be protected by the privilege. However, the Court concluded that a hospital could not shield documents it created itself by simply circulating them among the peer review committee.

If a health care entity itself is the original source, it cannot shield documents from disclosure just by circulating them during peer review proceedings. In other words, a health care entity must produce documents responsive to a document request if it created the document, the document was not generated by and/or exclusively for a peer review committee, and the document is available outside of any peer review committees' records (i.e., employees, affiliates, officers, or directors of the health care entity can access the document for non-peer review purposes).

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the trial court had failed to analyze whether the withheld documents were created by the hospital or the peer review committee and whether they would be covered by the privilege. “Absent evidence that the requested documents were created by and/or exclusively for a peer review committee, or generated by an original source and produced or presented to a peer review committee, the party asserting the R.C. 2305.252 privilege has not met its burden.” Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial court to evaluate the hospital’s privilege claim and to permit the plaintiff physician to complete discovery and revise his response to the hospital’s summary judgment motion if the hospital ultimately produced additional relevant evidence.


NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Lactation Discrimination in Ohio: Toto: We’re Not In Kansas Anymore.

This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision which had initially promised to decide whether Ohio law prohibited an employer from discriminating against an employee who was lactating. However, the per curiam decision (i.e., non-binding authority) remarkably avoided that issue altogether and, instead, affirmed an employer’s right to fire an employee for insubordination when the employee admittedly took unauthorized breaks without the employer’s knowledge or consent. Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corp., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4231. The Court’s action might not have raised an eyebrow if it were not for the facts of the case and that many people in Ohio have watched the oral argument previously broadcast on the Ohio Channel (which is part of PBS).

By way of background, after returning to work following her maternity leave, the plaintiff requested her supervisor for breaks to pump her breast milk to feed her five-month old infant. The employer apparently told her that she could do so during her regular lunch break. Employees were otherwise forbidden to take breaks unless they needed to urinate, etc. The plaintiff decided that her breasts needed pumped more often or later in the morning than her regular break schedule permitted and so, without her supervisor’s knowledge or consent, she began taking an extra break later in the morning to use the breast pump. The supervisor found out and fired her for failing to follow directions. There was some factual dispute about whether the plaintiff ever notified the employer that its prior arrangement was unsuitable before she added or rescheduled her own rest break.

When the plaintiff brought claims for wrongful discharge under the Ohio Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on the grounds that lactation five months after child birth is not related to pregnancy because lactation would have stopped in the natural course of events if the employee had decided not to breast feed her baby. (In his mind, the fact that she was lactating five months later was related to her decision to breast feed and not to her pregnancy). This was important because pregnancy is covered by statute and breastfeeding is not. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but only on the grounds that she did not satisfy her prima facie case and an employer may legitimately fire an employee for taking an unauthorized rest break.

As mentioned, a majority of the Supreme Court could not agree on a basis to affirm or reverse the judgment. While a majority could agree on affirming the judgment, they could not agree why. Most of the majority apparently agreed that it was non-discriminatory to fire an employee for taking unauthorized rest breaks. However, they could not agree whether the act of using a breast pump put the plaintiff into a protected status under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and refused to address the issue at all on the disingenuous rationale that it would constitute an advisory opinion.

Surprisingly, both Chief Justice Moyer and Justice O’Connor agreed that lactation should be a covered activity under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. As Justice O’Connor noted in her opinion, the relevant Ohio statute includes as sex discrimination any action taken “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, any illness arising out of and occurring during the course of a pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes * * *.” R.C. 4112.01(B).” The oral argument in this case spent most of the debate focusing on this language. Finding no legal support for her position in any federal court decision on the issue (even though she acknowledged that the Ohio statutory language quotes the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act verbatim) and even though a number of states have passed specific breastfeeding protection statutes to address the lapse, she decided it was beyond dispute that Ohio’s statute covered breastfeeding.

However, both Moyer and O’Conner felt that the plaintiff was asking for preferential treatment by taking an extra break to pump breast milk, and thus, could be fired like any other employee for taking an unauthorized rest break. They do not believe that Ohio law requires employers to give breastfeeding/breastpump breaks to employees. Unlike the ADA, the federal PDA does not require preferential treatment or reasonable accommodation for pregnant women. (Ohio law, on the other hand, mandates a reasonable maternity leave even when an employer does not provide any medial leave). On a strict comparative basis analysis, the plaintiff did not show that she was fired for engaging in the same conduct as others because no one else was taking an extra fifteen-minute break each day to pump breast mile (or any other reason). While I agree that an employee who takes surreptitious breaks or violates her supervisor’s direct order has been insubordinate, I am not certain that this issue is so simple since there seemed to be a factual dispute about whether the employee was treated differently on account of her breastfeeding break or whether Ohio law requires some sort of reasonable accommodation (assuming, of course, that lactating is covered by the PDA, which I do not think it is).

Justice Pfeifer agreed that the plaintiff’s lactating was covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, but felt that the plaintiff was discriminated against because she was fired for taking a rest break for the purpose of pumping breast milk, but admittedly would not have been fired if she had taken the same rest break in order to urinate. While this rationale has its benefits, is an employer required to treat breastfeeding the same as urination? If so, would employers then have an incentive to ban urination breaks? Is that a world in which we want to live? Are there time limits on either (how long you have to urinate vs pump breast milk)? Is it relevant that she may never have told the employer that its prior arrangement was insufficient? Does the employee get to decide for herself when she gets to take a break and how often or does she have to work that out first with her employer?

In any event, Isotoner now finds itself in the unenviable position of manufacturing a product (i.e., fashion gloves, slippers and umbrellas) to women who it will not permit to take a daily fifteen minute break to pump breast milk for suckling infants. Ohio employers are left unsure whether a future court decision will address this question or whether the Ohio legislature will eventually take it up. For now, there is no law in Ohio giving women the right to take breaks to pump breast milk for their infants.

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-4231.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.