Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Relief for Employers from Unemployment Filings

Client Alert
May 8, 2020

From the last 7 weeks, the total number of unemployment filings in the U.S. now totals 33.5 million, an unprecedented number comparable to the number of filings during the Great Depression. Although some state and federal funds are being used to supplement the unemployment funds, providing additional compensation to the unemployed, employers will be responsible for a very large portion of the total funds being doled out to employees. Specifically, employers will be responsible for repaying the state for up to 26 weeks of payments made to their unemployed employees, even those that are temporarily laid off and with plans to return. This financial responsibility will add up quickly for employers. 

There is good news for those facing large unemployment bills that will come due at the end of the year. Although state or federal legislators may eventually provide additional monetary relief to employers for unemployment liability, immediate relief is currently available to employers through the following options. 

1. Have employees return to work as soon as possible. 

If a company is permitted to reopen under state and local health orders, employees’ unemployment payments will stop once they return to work. This means that additional weeks the employees would spend on unemployment, if not reemployed, will not be charged to the employers’ accounts. 

2. Report to the state unemployment commissions if employees refuse to return to work.

If a company reopens and certain employees refuse to return to work without a valid, legal reason, employers should notify their state unemployment commission. For example, in Ohio, the Department of Job and Family Services established an online form that employers complete when employees refuse to return to work (located here). Employees are not eligible for continuing unemployment benefits if they are reoffered work at the same or similar pay and hours. Therefore, the completion of this form should have the effect of cutting off the employees’ unemployment benefits, thus preventing further liability being applied to the employers’ accounts. We also recommend, in addition to the online submission, employers notify their state unemployment commission, via a written letter, that an employee has refused to return to work under the same or similar pay and hours. 

Notably, if an employee is offered a return to work under reduced hours or pay, the employer should still notify its unemployment commission as the liability may be partially reduced in proportion to the hours/pay being offered. 

3. Appeal unemployment charges for former employees that previously quit or were fired from their job prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, as discussed in a previous Client Alert located here, employers should be challenging all unemployment filings from former employees who quit or were terminated for just cause prior to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under most state unemployment laws, employers can be liable for a former employee’s unemployment benefits up to a year from departure of employment. However, this liability may be removed or reduced if the employee quit or was terminated for just cause. Employers will need to go through the appeal process to challenge these unemployment filings as the state unemployment commission is likely unaware that the employee previously quit or was terminated. For this reason, employers must complete and timely respond to all requests for information, including the details surrounding the departure. Employers should include all relevant information, including resignation letters/emails or handbook provisions that have been violated leading to a termination. 

Bryan Meek is a member of Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s Labor & Employment team and is available to assist you with responding to requests for information and/or appealing unfavorable unemployment decisions. Bryan can be reached at 330.253.5586, or bmeek@bmdllc.com.

COVID-19unemploymentState of OhiocoronaviruspandemicEmployers
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts