Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Obtains Supreme Court Victory on Behalf of Sterilite of Ohio, LLC

Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio – On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC, Slip Op. No. 2020-Ohio-4193. The Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision reversed an Ohio Court of Appeals ruling that had reinstated a putative class action against Sterilite brought by a group of current and former employees claiming that Sterilite’s use of “direct observation” urinalysis screening violated their common law right to privacy.

BMD originally obtained dismissal of the case in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, which was reversed by a decision of the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals in August 2018. Following the Fifth District’s adverse ruling, BMD successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Ohio to accept jurisdiction and hear the case. BMD partner Daniel Rudary argued Sterilite’s appeal to the Supreme Court on January 28, 2020.

In its decision reversing the appellate court, the Supreme Court majority adopted BMD’s argument that the plaintiff employees consented to drug testing under the “direct observation” method when they voluntarily produced urine samples while being observed by a same-sex monitor in a designated restroom facility. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed Ohio’s long standing rule of employment-at-will, holding that because “Sterilite had the legal right to terminate appellees’ employment at any time, appellees’ argument that their consent was involuntary because of their fear of termination necessarily fails.”

BMD Litigation Member John Childs and Partner Daniel Rudary represented Sterilite before the Supreme Court of Ohio. Their brief to the Supreme Court can be read here, and Attorney Rudary’s January 28, 2020 oral argument can be viewed here.

See additional coverage on the decision in the ABA Journal and Bloomberg News.


PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Details

As PPP loan recipients start to take stock of how they’ve used funds over the eight-week period, many businesses are eager to move ahead with the forgiveness portion of the program. How much of the loan will be forgiven is determined by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), as provided in the CARES Act.[1] Over the weekend, the Department of Treasury released details on the forgiveness application, which can be found here.

CARES Act and Financial Institutions – Litigation Update

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) and the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) have allowed some businesses to remain operational during the COVID-19 pandemic. For these businesses, obtaining access to funds under these programs has proved vital.

A Potential Childcare Disruption for Rehired Employees

As businesses reopen, employers with fewer than 500 employees need to brush up on the FFCRA Paid Leave rules, including a potential disruption to your return to operations.

With Summer Vacation on the Way, Are Employees Still Entitled to Childcare Leave under EFMLEA?

Distance learning/homeschooling is finally starting to wrap-up for millions of students across America, a perhaps welcomed end for many, and summer vacation will soon begin. As summer vacation begins, your employees may have questions as to whether they qualify for child care leave under the expanded FMLA (“EFMLEA”), which many employees used over the last few months to receive partial compensation while they were away from work to care for their children. Now, employers with fewer than 500 employees must take note of additional guidance recently published concerning qualification for childcare leave.

Economic Impact Payment is Not Taxable Income

The IRS stated that the economic impact payments are not considered taxable income. Therefore, individuals will not owe tax on the amount of economic impact payment received.