Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: Class Action Waivers in Employment Contracts Upheld by Supreme Court

Client Alert

On May 21, 2018, in a 5-4 decision and a major win for employers, the United States Supreme Court upheld the legality of waivers in employment contracts that prohibit employees from grouping claims together in collective or class actions in favor of individual arbitration proceedings. See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, ___U.S.___ (2018).

Employers have used these collective/class action waivers to protect against collective action wage and hour claims. Employees and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) had challenged the legality of such provisions, arguing that they violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”) prohibition against employers interfering with employees’ rights to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” See 29 U.S.C. § 157.  Employers’ argued, under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), that arbitration agreements entered into through a lawful contract must be upheld. 9 U.S.C. § 2. The United States Supreme Court resolved the conflict in favor of the FAA and employers.

Employers are encouraged to consult with their legal counsel to determine whether collective/class action waivers may be beneficial to their business or review waivers already in place to determine whether such waivers fit squarely in the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision. BMD’s employment attorneys are available for such consultation.  Should you have any questions regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision or class/collective action waivers, please contact Adam D. Fuller at adfuller@bmdllc.com.


Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.

January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.