Youngstown Daily Legal News

Proposed bill would update protections for state workers

KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 24, 2017

The Cincinnati Republican lawmaker who championed changes to the state's civil rights laws pertaining to employment during the previous session of the Ohio Legislature has resurrected effort in House Bill 2.

Rep. Bill Seitz introduced earlier this month the measure which would bring in line the state's employment civil rights protections with other states and federal law.

"Drastically differing state and federal laws create an administrative burden for employers and human resource professionals," he told members of the House Economic Development, Commerce and Labor during a first hearing this week. "Shaping Ohio law to mirror federal law will create greater predictability in matters of workplace discrimination for both employers and employees.

Seitz faulted the state's six-year statute of limitations on discrimination claims as a burdensome recordkeeping expenses for businesses, hampering timely, fair, and efficient resolution of claims for both employers and employees.

"Indeed when the Supreme Court established a six-year statute of limitations, Justice (Judith) Resnik wrote, 'I beseech the General Assembly to reclaim this issue and resolve it on a legislative level' as between the six years and the alternate of a one year statute of limitations," Seitz said.

The statute of limitations alignment of Ohio law applies to both civil actions and Ohio Civil Rights Commission claims, allowing for claims/lawsuits to be decided more fairly and efficiently.

HB 2 also would extend the timeframe to file with the civil rights commission from 180 days under current law to one year.

Seitz noted the provision is more generous than the federal law, which affords only 300 days for filing.

Additionally, HB 2 would eliminate the practice of simultaneously filing both a claim and a lawsuit.

Language in the bill provides for the clock on the statute of limitation for a civil court case to stop once a commission claim is filed.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill, is the individual supervisor liability. Seitz said opponents of the provision inaccurately call it the "sexual predator protection law."

"As in federal law, under this bill individual supervisors or managers cannot be held personally liable under the employment discrimination statutes when that individual is acting in the interest of an employer - unless the individual is himself the employer," Seitz said. "The purpose of anti-discrimination law is to protect employees from the effects of discrimination in their jobs by their employer. The supervisor is not the employer.

"In the event that a supervisor would commit an egregious act of harassment - the type that would fall under the 'sexual predator' label - abundant remedies exist under numerous tort laws including assault and battery, libel, slander, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Again, the lawmaker noted, the change would make Ohio consistent with federal case law.

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Michele Lepore-Hagan of Youngstown, challenged the bill, calling it a protection for workplace bullies, according to a published report in Hannah Capitol Connection. Seitz defended the measure, but the report was unclear whether he satisfied Lepore-Hagan's concerns.

The Democrat lawmaker was unavailable for immediate comment, according a legislative aide.

HB 2 would allow employers to raise an affirmative defense in hostile work environment harassment claims if they can prove that they had an effective anti-harassment policy, properly educated employees about the policy and complaint procedures, exercised reasonable care to prevent or promptly correct an unlawful practice, and that the complainant failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities, the bill stipulated, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in has held this defense Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).

"HB 2 is necessary as it will maintain protections for Ohio employees from discrimination in the workplace while also increasing uniformity between state and federal discrimination laws and improving predictability, stability, and administrative efficiency for Ohio employers," Seitz concluded.

The measure remains assigned to the committee for further consideration. No hearings, however, were scheduled as of publication.

[Back]