NLRB Seeks to Deter Unfair Arbitration Practices

The National Labor Relations Board has filed a complaint against a fitness center in San Francisco. In the complaint, the Board takes issue with the center’s employee arbitration agreement. When hired by the center, employees receive a handbook indicating that they have 30 days to affirmatively opt-out of an implicit agreement to arbitrate any legal claim against the center. The NLRB alleges that this practice violates federal labor law because it denies workers the right to bring certain legal actions against the employer.

Specifically, the Board believes the center’s arbitration policy is coercive in that it hinders employees’ ability to sue the center as a class. This is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to join a class action lawsuit. Several legal experts see this NLRB action as the beginning of a nationwide crackdown on coercive employer-employee arbitration agreements.

If you have a question as to whether your business’s arbitration practices are in compliance with federal law, DLM Legal’s attorneys can provide an answer. To get in touch with one of them, call 216-635-0002 or write at info@dlmlegal.com.

DLM Legal Welcomes Scott Ebner

Scott Ebner joins the firm as an Associate Attorney focusing on corporate law and transactions. Scott is a 2010 graduate of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, where he served as the Articles Editor for the Journal of Law and Health. While in law school, he interned at the The Housing Advocates, Inc., a non-profit law firm focusing on mortgage and foreclosure law. He also served as a research assistant to Professor David Forte. Prior to joining DLM Legal, Scott worked as the Zoning Manager for Millman Surveying.

Scott graduated from Xavier University in 2005 with degrees in history and education. Prior to attending law school, Scott was a high school teacher in Cincinnati.

Scott enjoys spending time with his family and his girlfriend, Samantha.

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Offers Option for Premium Discounts

The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation is giving employers a chance to save on their workers’ compensation premiums through a new program known as “Destination: Excellence.” Ohio employers opting to participate will work with the Bureau to customize a risk-management plan that best suits their business needs.

Destination: Excellence is designed to address workplace safety through the incentive of lower workers’ compensation premiums for employers. Specifically, the Bureau hopes the program will reduce the number of accidents in Ohio workplaces and bring injured workers back to work sooner.

For information on how to enroll in Destination: Excellence, contact the Bureau at excellence.destination@bwc.state.oh.us. The deadline to apply for the program is April 30, 2012.

To learn more about the legal implications of workers compensation issues in your business, contact DLM Legal at info@dlmlegal.com or 216.635.0002.

Anti-Discrimination Law for Medicare Providers

Federal law requires all licensed providers of Medicare (i.e. any organization or facility that receives Medicare funding) to affirm that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or age at any level of operation.

To ensure that your facility is in compliance with this law, it is recommended that any material you disclose to the public (via brochure, employment application, admission application, or website) contain the following language:

“[Name of Facility] does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or age in admission, treatment, or publication in its programs, services and activities, or in employment.”

Additionally, any such facility should include in the above statement the contact information of a representative who can field questions about the anti-discrimination policy.

If you have any questions about your organization’s compliance with this or other Medicare laws, DLM Legal’s attorneys can help. Contact one of them at 216.635.0002 or info@dlmlegal.com.

ODH Releases County Bed Need Figures for CON

The Ohio Department of Health has published its projections of Ohio counties’ long-term bed needs. Certificate of Need (CON) applications may be filed beginning July 1. Under the 2010 budget, the Director of Health was authorized to project which Ohio counties will have a surplus or need of nursing home beds. The counties with a surplus of beds are then identified with a maximum number of beds that can be relocated to a county having a need of beds.

The bed need rate is currently 45.8 beds per 1,000 people age 65 and greater. This rate is calculated by using the statewide occupancy rate of 82.85% in facilities that filed a Medicaid cost report in 2010.

According to this year’s projections, 20 counties have a need of over 400 beds with the top counties being Franklin, Lake, Portage, and Clermont Counties. Cuyahoga County, on the other hand, has an excess of over 2,000 beds.

For more information regarding bed needs across Ohio, visit http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhPrograms/dspc/certn/certneed1.aspx

Five Reasons Why an Attorney Should Review Your Lease

A commercial lease may not appear to be much different than an apartment lease, but in reality a commercial lease usually puts more of a financial burden on the commercial tenant. Here are five reasons you should have your commercial lease reviewed by an attorney:

1. Terms written in your favor. An attorney experienced in business law will review the lease and give legal advice as to what changes should be made to protect your interests. An apartment lease is usually for one year, and in most cases any repairs are done by the landlord. In a commercial lease, however, the term of the lease is at least five years with the potential to renew the term for up to 20 more years. And the landlord may try to make the repairs the responsibility of the tenant. An attorney can spot terms such as these and suggest changes in your favor.

2. Know which terms you should negotiate. A business law attorney reviews leases on a consistent basis, so he or she knows which terms should be negotiated and which terms are less important to negotiate.

3. Makes you more professional. It’s all about perception: if the landlord sees you spending time and money on an attorney for your lease, the landlord will see that you are taking the lease and your business seriously.

4. Terms are correct.  An attorney will review the lease to ensure all the terms are correct, even the seemingly small items such as dates.

5. Assistance with additional documents.  Not only can an attorney help you with the lease, but also the attorney can identify additional business documents you may need like forms, permits, licenses, and the correct legal entity to enter into the lease.

Are you now thinking maybe you should have your commercial lease reviewed by an attorney? Please give our office a call at (216) 635-0002, and our attorneys would be happy to assist you in reviewing your commercial lease to safeguard you and your business.

Supreme Court Upholds States’ Immunity from FMLA Lawsuits

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), employers are required to allow employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually due to personal illnesses or immediate family issues such as pregnancy. Yesterday, in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that state employers cannot be sued for violating the sick leave provision of the FMLA.

In 2003, the Court held in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs that state employers could be sued for violating the FMLA provision granting employees unpaid leave relating to immediate family issues. The Court’s main concern in deciding Hibbs was preventing states from discriminating on the basis of sex. In Coleman, however, the Court found no widespread evidence of sex discrimination in the administration of sick leave. As a result, the majority found no reason to pierce states’ immunity from civil lawsuits alleging violations of the FMLA sick leave provision.

Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissent in Coleman that private employers are still subject to civil liability for violating the FMLA’s sick leave provision and that other legal remedies exist when state employers violate it.

Is Your Arbitration Clause Fully Enforceable?

On February 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision concerning states’ ability to declare arbitration agreements or clauses unenforceable. The case, Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown et al., came to the Court from the Supreme Court of West Virginia. That court held that a clause to arbitrate all disputes in a nursing home admission agreement was not enforceable in a claim of negligence (personal injury) against the nursing home due to state public policy concerns.

Specifically, the West Virginia Supreme Court reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which offers a presumption of enforceability for arbitration clauses, was preempted by the state’s own public policy against enforcing arbitration clauses for negligence and wrongful death claims when the party seeking arbitration is involved in providing a service that is a “practical necessity for members of the public.”

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the West Virginia Supreme Court’s rationale for denying arbitration, citing the fact that the FAA preempts a state’s arbitration policies and that this federal act includes no exception for personal injury or wrongful death claims. The Court explained that West Virginia’s public policy-rooted prohibition against enforcing arbitration clauses in these kinds of claims against a nursing home is a categorical rule. A state categorical rule that prohibits enforcement of an arbitration clause based on the nature of a claim violates the FAA.

Unlike West Virginia, Ohio has not created a categorical rule prohibiting enforcement of arbitration clauses when plaintiffs bring a personal injury or wrongful death claim against a nursing home. In fact, the Ohio legislature has enacted R.C. 2711.01(A), which provides that an arbitration agreement is enforceable unless grounds exist at law or in equity for revoking the agreement.

In Ohio, unconscionability represents the primary state common law grounds for revocation of an arbitration agreement. Ohio courts have established several guidelines for determining whether an arbitration agreement is unconscionable and thus unenforceable.
If you or your company have concerns about whether a certain arbitration agreement is enforceable, feel free to contact DLM Legal for further information at 216.635.0002 or info@dlmlegal.com.

OSHA Declares Intent to Mandate Injury and Illness Prevention Programs

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has stated its intent to begin crafting a rule that will require covered employers to implement an injury and illness prevention program. OSHA hopes this new rule will help employers find and fix hazards in their workplaces.

OSHA has stressed that this program is not meant to be a “one-size-fits-all” requirement. Instead, to comply with the rule, employers will have to tailor their own program to the size and nature of their workplace. The motivation for passing this rule came from a Bureau of Labor Statistics study that found preventable injuries and illnesses cost American businesses about $1 billion per week. Violations of this new rule will only stem from employers’ failure to implement an injury and illness prevention program – all other OSHA rules be enforced normally.

For more information on this OSHA proposal and to learn about how you can participate in the rule making process, visit: http://www.osha.gov/dsg/topics/safetyhealth/index.html#stakeholder

If you have questions about your company’s compliance with OSHA regulations, feel free to contact DLM Legal for guidance at 216.635.0002 or info@dlmlegal.com.