Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: Update on Discrimination

Client Alert

The “#metoo” presence and the recent Kavanaugh confirmation hearings have brought sexual discrimination issues to the forefront of the American mind.  Always an incendiary and confusing topic, it also includes various permutations of issues involving sex, sex stereotyping, sexual orientation, and  transgender  situations.  Employment issues abound, including proper use of restrooms and disciplinary matters. “LBGTQ” are more than mere letters strung together.

Cuyahoga County passed an ordinance recently which applies to all Cuyahoga County cities and townships, making it unlawful for any business to discriminate against any person based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  A Commission on Human Rights was designated to investigate and rule on complaints.

Similarly, the City of Akron passed an ordinance expanding equal employment for employees working in the city.  Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees located in the city, as well as businesses that take contracts from the City but are located elsewhere.  Employers with 4 or more individuals are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of the “traditional” bases (such as race, color, religion, etc.), but also on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.  The ordinance also created the Akron Civil Rights Commission to receive and investigate complaints.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has taken the position that discrimination on the basis of sex includes transgender, sexual identity, and sexual orientation.  The Ohio Civil Rights Commission is the state investigative arm that similarly investigates such complaints (which they often term as a “Charge”).

Ohio is located in the Federal Sixth Circuit.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided a case involving transgender issues, and also discussed whether a religious belief may play a part in an employer’s decision to terminate an employee.  That case is now on appeal to the United States Supreme Court and, no matter how the Supreme Court rules (and whether or not the Court decides to take the case for review), employer-employee relations will be affected.

Given the currently charged atmosphere, employers should consider a review of their employment practices and handbooks.  In addition, management training should be considered to stay ahead of the trends in this important area. 

If you would like more information, please contact Richard L. Williger at (330) 253-3770 or rlwilliger@bmdllc.com.

 


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.