Tonight, Channel 19 has a well-researched story by Jennifer Edwards Baker of our clients, Jerry Isham — Realtor — and his buyer Tony Edwards, innocently looking at a house in West Price Hill for possible sale, when they were rousted by eight Cincinnati Police Officers with guns drawn.  The police then illegally detained and handcuffed the pair, and illegally searched Mr. Isham’s pockets.

They had done absolutely nothing illegal; they had done absolutely nothing wrong.

It’s truly as if CPD officers have received no training on the constitutional limit on the exercise of their their policy powers.

Incidentally, CPD illegally destroyed seven of the body cam and dash cam videos of the incident after they were subject to a formal public records request from the City.

Read the Ch. 19 story here:   Lawsuit: Realtor, prospective home buyer illegally detained by CPD after retired cop calls 911.

The Fox 19 video story is here.

For more information, call Chris Finney at 513-720-2996.

 

As I meet with clients to explain the expensive and drawn-out odyssey that litigation can become, it can be a challenge to explain the mind-bending mental gymnastics that attorneys can force parties to endure.  Things that are painfully logical and simple to ordinary folks (laymen, non-attorneys) can be expensive and difficult to establish in court as litigants want to argue over absolutely everything.

The best example I can give of this is an exchange I had in a trial held before Federal District Court Magistrate Litkovich in January of this year.

This trial was an MSD claim relating to the MSD’s administrative claims process for basements subject to sanitary sewer backups.  This case was an extreme instance in which our client experienced more than 9′ of effluent that came into his basement on a regular basis, and MSD simply refused to stand behind its obligations under a consent decree arising from prior litigation with the US EPA.

To win, we had to prove these things: (a) sanitary sewer “surcharge” flooded his basement, (b) on multiple occasions, (c) that MSD was unable to develop an “engineering solution” that would stop the flooding, and (d) that he had made a claim to the MSD hotline within 24 hours after an incident.

The flooding was so severe and repeated that these elements were easily proved.  Yet for two years, MSD had refused to negotiate a settlement in good faith.  They insisted upon a trial, even though there was no factual issue in dispute; from our perspective, there was simply nothing to try.

So, MSD’s attorneys adopted the defense at the hearing that our client, the Plaintiff, could not prove that it would actually rain again:

Tim Sullivan of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister represented MSD at the hearing and here he was questioning my client’s expert witness:

Q. And if we had no rain, if climate change really turns out to be as dire as some people tell us, you would agree this property would have no problem in the future?

A. If there was no rain?

Q. Right, or not enough rain to cause any surcharge from any part of the Sewer District system.

A. Yeah, I would think the property would be — certainly you could take another look at living there and going there if you have no risk of backups, any kind of backup.

I must admit it was a creative question: “What if it never rains again?”  Brilliant! And we already had our lineup of witnesses named.  Who could testify with requisite expertise that, in fact, Cincinnati would experience a rain event in the future?

We ultimately settled the case.  But after 30 years of doing this I once again learned the hard lesson that lawyers can argue over absolutely anything.

And for the record, since this hearing, Cincinnati has experienced 15″ in rainfall more than is average for this point in the year. Yes, Virginia, it is going to rain again.

_____________________

For help with your litigation challenges, call Bradley M. Gibson at 513-943-6661 and for help with MSD claims call attorney Julie M. Gugino at 513-943-5669.

_____________________

A copy of the transcript excerpt in this exchange is attached here.  The quoted language is at page 19, starting at line 13.

 

A common misconception about wage and hour law is that salaried employees are not eligible to receive overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. This is sometimes true, but not always.

Generally speaking, the law  divides employees into “exempt” and “non-exempt” employees. An “exempt” employee is an employee who is exempt from the overtime laws – meaning that employers normally are not required to pay them time and 1/2 when they work more than 40 hours in a week. In order to be considered “exempt,” an employee DOES have to receive a regular salary that – for the most part – does not vary based on the number of hours they work. But (and this is an important “but”) receiving a regular set salary is not the ONLY requirement in order for an employee to be considered “exempt” from the wage and hour laws.

In order to be considered “exempt,” an employee must be performing a certain kind of work that falls into one of the exemptions recognized by federal and/or state law. There are literally dozens of exemptions, but if an employee doesn’t fall into at least one of them, then he or she is entitled to be paid overtime regardless of whether or not he or she is “salaried.” The most common exemptions are for executives, professionals, administrative employees who exercise a great deal of discretion and independent judgment in their jobs, and outside salespeople.

The wage and hour laws are among the most complicated laws that govern the employment relationship. As a consequence, it is very common for employers to “miss-classify” an employee as being exempt when they are not. When an employer makes a classification mistake, it can be very expensive, as employees can recover not only their lost wages, but also additional damages and attorney’s fees from the employer who makes the classification mistake. This is also a field in which employers can be subject to hugely expensive “class action” lawsuits, filed on behalf of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of employees.

When it comes to classifying employees as either “exempt” or “non-exempt,” it is literally true that “you can’t be too careful!” If you have any questions or concerns about these issues – as an employer or employee – be sure to consult with competent employment counsel.

On May 23rd the Finney Law Firm filed a proposed class action lawsuit in Federal Court in Cincinnati on behalf of nearly 150,000 retired Ohio teachers.

The basis for the lawsuit is the 2017 decision of the Ohio State Teachers Retirement Board to eliminate the 2% cost-of-living increases that the retirees had been receiving under Ohio law. The lawsuit alleges that the Board eliminated these much needed cost-of-living adjustments – adjustments that the retirees had been promised, and were counting on – without proper legal authority, and without justification.

The caption of the suit, which has been assigned to Judge Susan Dlott, is “Dean Dennis and Robert Buerkle v. Ohio State Teachers Retirement Board.” We are asking the Court to certify the case as a class action on behalf of all Ohio teacher retirees.

Our clients worked for decades, for very modest compensation, doing one of the most important jobs in the world – educating Ohio’s children. Over the course of those decade of work, our clients had been repeatedly promised that, in their retirement years, they would receive annual cost of living adjustments that would at least allow them to keep pace with inflation.

We believe the State Teachers Retirement Board broke faith with Ohio’s retired teachers in 2017, when it abruptly and indefinitely eliminated their cost-of-living increases without due consideration, and without a valid legal basis for its action.

The perceived financial issues that the Board cited as the justification for eliminating these important benefits could have been more than adequately addressed in a variety of ways that would not have dealt such a devastating blow to our retired teachers. Instead, the Board chose to put 100% of the burden on the people who were most vulnerable, and who could least afford it. We do not believe this was necessary, just, or legal.

We hope this lawsuit will shine a light on the Board’s actions, and that it will lead to the restoration of the benefits Ohio’s retried teachers worked so hard to earn.

Our firm’s employment law department, Steve Imm and Matt Okiishi, are counsel on the case along with the firms of Goldenberg Schneider LPA, (with whom we successfully have prosecuted other class action cases) and Minnillo & Jenkins, Co., LPA.

For more information, contact Stephen E. Imm at 513-943-5678.

You may read the Complaint online here or below.

We will regularly update progress on this important case on this blog.

[scribd id=411380545 key=key-8KgxtmSkU4rIPLszBFuv mode=scroll]

The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued decisions in three cases further clarifying the valuation of “leased fee sales” (property that is subject to an existing lease at the time of the sale).

The purchase price of a leased fee interest, particularly when the lease has a many years left, more accurately reflect the value of the cash flow that the lease will generate rather than the value of the underlying real estate. This is why real estate investors had for years sought changes to Ohio’s property valuation law (the legislature  acted in 2013). Since then, the battle has been in the courts to determine how the changes would be implemented.

In recent years, the courts have given life to those changes in decisions ordering the board of tax appeals to disregard the sales in “sale leaseback transactions” and in these most recent cases, in ordering the Board of Tax Appeals to consider appraisal evidence of leased fee sales.

The Court issued decisions on that issue in three cases on May 6, 2019:

Store Master Funding VI, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 253, 2018-Ohio-4301

Spirit Master Funding IX, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 254, 2018-Ohio-4302

Northland-4, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 257, 2018-Ohio-4303

The Court also issued a decision regarding the exclusion of easement rights in determining the value “as if unencumbered.” The Court found that the express language of the statute, ordering that the value of real estate be determined “as if unencumbered” means that the value of an easement benefiting a parcel should be excluded when determining the value of that parcel. Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. V. Franklin County Board of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 187, 2018-Ohio-2909

The end result for all four of these cases points to a better opportunity for real estate investors to challenge the auditor’s adoption of the recent sale price of properties subject to leases or other encumbrances,

Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s Property Valuation practice here.

Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan and the Finney Law Firm will give a presentation to the Real Estate Investor’s Association of Greater Cincinnati (REIAGC) covering the property valuation challenge process.

The correct valuation of real property can mean the difference between success and failure for residential and commercial landlords, and their tenants.

On Thursday, March 7, our attorney and Matt Nolan will discuss the procedure for bringing a challenge, issues to consider prior to bringing a challenge, and next steps if the initial challenge is not successful.

Click on this link to the REIAGC’s website for more information or to register to attend. Registration is free for members, $35.00 for non-members.

Learn more about Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan here. Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s Property Valuation practice here.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered the Ohio Elections Commission to file its response to Aftab Pureval’s emergency motion to halt the investigation into his campaign finance violations by noon on Friday, October 26, 2018.

In addition to the filing at the Ohio Supreme Court, Pureval has filed yet another motion with the Ohio Elections Commission seeking to delay the hearing until after the election. Pureval is desperate to prevent the voters from scrutinizing his campaign spending before the election.

The Order from the Ohio Supreme Court and the latest filing at the Ohio Elections Commission are below and available online here and here.

Read more about Pureval’s efforts to avoid accountability in this matter here, here, and here.

[scribd id=391554552 key=key-8tlJQBFvfE52DYnNYFrE mode=scroll]

[scribd id=391554882 key=key-FYFu2fi2K27jm5fhoAxT mode=scroll]

The Hamilton County Board of Elections released a transcript of this mornings meeting. Read the transcript on scribd here or below.

Also released was a new filing by the Aftab Pureval campaign – the unredacted checks showing that the $16,500 payment to GBA Strategies – a DC polling firm – was indeed for polling, not “consulting.” View the checks here or below.

These documents prove the truth of the complaint filed by Finney Law Firm with the Ohio Elections Commission and highlight the need for a full investigation by the Ohio Elections Commission.

The Ohio Elections Commission will hold its probable cause hearing Thursday, September 20, at 10 a.m. in the Riffe Center in Columbus, Ohio. We look forward to a full adjudication of our complaint.

[scribd id=389019696 key=key-VS2cKJSocVRDEjl6dLRA mode=scroll]

[scribd id=389020381 key=key-C1F87086Nlqpb6nTxlSa mode=scroll]

 

Can an employer make deductions from employee wages?

On the face it, the answer seems obvious: Of course! Employers make deductions from employee wages on a routine basis. Common examples that come to mind are for federal and state tax withholdings, or for court-ordered garnishments. Sometimes, employees authorize other deductions, such as for insurance or union dues. All of these examples share a common trait: They exist for the benefit of the employee or a third party.

But what about when an employer unilaterally docks an employee’s wages for items that benefit the employer, such as for a uniform, a background check, or for damage to employer property caused by an employee?

Generally, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law governing wages on a federal level, permits unilateral deductions that benefit the employer provided that those deductions do not reduce the employee’s wages below the minimum wage. This rule applies to both overtime non-exempt and exempt salaried employees, and employers who routinely reduce the wages of salary exempt employees below the federal requirement of $455 per week run the risk of losing the exemption.

While federal law may permit deductions from employee wages, applicable state laws can and often do restrict the ability of employers to make deductions that benefit the employer.  Ohio law prohibits employers from reducing the wages of employees for tools, damaged machinery, and uniforms absent written agreement with the employee. Going further than Ohio, Kentucky prohibits employers from deducting wages for things like breakage or property damage even when the employee authorizes the deduction. And of course, in both Ohio and Kentucky, employers should be wary of making deductions that reduce an employee’s wage to below the minimum wage.

The legality of deductions from employee wages is fact specific. Both employers and employees should be wary of wage deductions, as overzealous deductions could prove costly for pocketbooks and bottom lines.