Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

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

Client Alert

Effective 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:

  • Inquire about the salary history of an applicant for employment;
  • Screen job applicants based on their current or prior wages, benefits, other compensation, or salary histories (including requiring that an applicant's history satisfy minimum or maximum criteria);
  • Rely solely on the salary history of an applicant in deciding whether to offer employment to an applicant, or in determining the salary, benefits, or other compensation; and
  • Refuse to hire or otherwise disfavor, injure, or retaliate against an applicant for not disclosing salary history.

Additionally, employers may not communicate with an applicant's current or prior employers to obtain an applicant’s salary history. Moreover, employers may not search publicly available records for the purpose of obtaining an applicant’s salary history. However, these prohibitions do not bar employers from discussing an applicant’s expectations regarding salary, benefits, and other compensation.

As defined by the ordinance, an “applicant” is any person applying for employment (whether interviewed or not) to be performed within the City of Columbus and whose application (in whole or in part) will be solicited, received, processed, or considered in the city of Columbus. An “employer” is defined as employing 15 or more persons within Columbus. Job placement and referral agencies are deemed employers when they operate on behalf of an “employer” as defined by the ordinance.

In response to an employer’s violation of the ordinance, an applicant may file a complaint with the Community Relations Commission. Depending on the number of violations, employers could face up to $5,000 in civil fines.

As provided within its text, the ordinance’s purpose is to eliminate hiring practices that “perpetuate issues of systemic discrimination related to the wage gap and wealth gap for women, especially women of color.”

In preparing for March 1, Columbus employers should assess and modify their current hiring practices to comply with the ordinance once it is in effect.

Should you have any questions regarding the ordinance or its implications, please contact BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis at

Corporate Transparency Act: Business Owners Must Act Now

The Corporate Transparency Act requires all reporting companies to file their Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report by year-end to avoid penalties. Companies formed before January 1, 2024, have less than six months to comply. Learn more in a client alert by BMD Member Blake Gerney.

New Medicare Billing Rules: What MFTs, MHCs, and IOP Providers Need to Know

Starting January 1, 2024, Medicare began covering services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by marriage and family therapists, mental health counselors, and Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) services. With this change, Medicare has become the primary payer for these services.

Chevron Doctrine No More: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Agency Authority

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron doctrine, nearly 40 years after it first took effect.

Ohio Board of Pharmacy Update: Key Regulatory Changes and Proposals You Need to Know

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy (BOP) has rescinded certain OAC rules (OAC 4729:5-18-01 through 4729:5-18-06), removing regulations on office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) clinics. The rescissions took effect on June 3, 2024. The BOP also published a new rule, OAC 4729:8-5-01, which sets explicit reporting guidelines for licensed dispensaries and became effective on June 7, 2024.

LGBTQIA+ Patients and Discrimination in Healthcare

In early April, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a study outlining the challenges that LGBT adults face in the United States related to healthcare. According to the study, LGBT patients are “twice as likely as non-LGBT adults to report negative experiences while receiving health care in the last three years, including being treated unfairly or with disrespect (33% v. 15%) or having at least one of several other negative experiences with a provider (61% v. 31%), including a provider assuming something about them without asking, suggesting they were personally to blame for a health problem, ignoring a direct request or question, or refusing to prescribe needed pain medication.”