Resources

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 dlkackloudis@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.