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

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.


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.”

Ohio Recovery Housing Overhaul: New Standards and Certification Requirements Reshape Sober Living Spaces

Ensuring Fair Access: SB 269 Protects Affordable Medication for Low-Income Patients

SB 269, introduced on December 19, 2023, will ensure that 340B covered entities, including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White Clinics, disproportionate share hospitals, and Title X clinics, can acquire 340B drugs without facing undue restrictions or discriminatory practices from drug manufacturers and distributors. This protection is crucial for 340B covered entities to continue to provide affordable medications and comprehensive services to low-income patients.

Unveiling Ohio's Pharmacy Board Updates for Distributors, Mobile Clinics, and Controlled Substances

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy will hold a public hearing on May 28, 2024, to discuss several proposed changes and additions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). These changes pertain to terminal distributors of dangerous drugs (TDDDs), mobile clinics or medication units, and the classification of controlled substances.

House Bill 249: Key Updates to Involuntary Hospitalization Law for Mental Health Providers

House Bill 249 (HB 249) proposes changes to Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Sections 5122.01 and 5122.10 to expand the conditions under which a person with a mental illness can be involuntarily hospitalized.