Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Title VII to Protect LGBTQ Community

Client Alert
June 15, 2020

It is not every day that the United States Supreme Court issues a decision that dramatically changes the workplace, but it happened this week. In a landmark decision captioned as Bostock v. Clayton County, issued by the Court on June 15th, the Court ruled that federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex” will now include protections for individuals on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender, and gender identity.

On its face, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in pertinent part, that it is an “unlawful employment practice for an employer” to discriminate against an individual “because of such individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin” (emphasis added).

In the decades since its passing, courts across the country have grappled with the meaning of “sex” within the text of Title VII and the extent of its coverage; however, today, the Court clarified that “sex” includes sexual orientation, transgender, and gender identity, extending employment protections to these protected classes of people.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in which he writes:

In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires [or discriminates against] an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.

This is a very important decision for all employers in America to recognize and follow as it will surely lead to liability and lawsuits for those employers that choose to ignore it. Practically, this decision prohibits an employer from considering an employee’s sexual orientation, transgender, or gender identification when making decisions concerning hiring, discipline, pay rate, job duties, and termination. As a result, employers should take this ruling as an opportunity to update employee handbooks and ensure provisions reflect the newly identified protected classes. As an additional measure, employers should use this decision as an opportunity to conduct re-trainings for all employees to ensure company-wide compliance with anti-discrimination and harassment policies, including the recent protections afforded to the LGBTQ community. Finally, this decision should spark employers to consider purchasing or reviewing their current Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) plan to ensure protection in the event of claims arising out of this decision.

Bryan Meek is a member of Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s Employment & Labor 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. 

Supreme Courtlandmark decisionBostock v. Clayton Countydiscrimination on basis of sexprotections for individuals on basis of sexual orientationtransgendergender identityTitle VIIProtecting LGBTQ Communityemployersliability lawsuitsexual orientationemployee handbookDiscrimination
Client Alert

CMS and Ohio Ramp Up Fraud Enforcement in Home Health and Hospice

May 15, 2026CMS and Ohio have launched sweeping new fraud prevention initiatives targeting home health and hospice providers, signaling a period of heightened scrutiny for enrollment, billing, documentation, and EVV compliance. While aimed at combating fraud, these measures also create significant operational and due process risks for compliant agencies, making proactive compliance programs, auditing, and governance more important than ever.Client Alert

MYTH BUSTER: Can a New Chiropractor Bill Under An Established Chiropractor’s NPI?

May 14, 2026Many chiropractic practices mistakenly believe a newly hired chiropractor can bill under an established chiropractor’s NPI while waiting for credentialing approval. In most cases, this is not permitted. Claims should be submitted under the NPI of the chiropractor who actually rendered the service to avoid compliance risks, including potential False Claims Act exposure. This article outlines key billing rules, common exceptions, and practical compliance tips for chiropractic practices.Client Alert

RNs and APRNs Take Note: Ohio Board of Nursing Mandates a New CE Reporting Period

April 29, 2026Ohio’s Board of Nursing has updated the continuing education reporting period for RNs and APRNs. Beginning March 26, 2026, CE credits must be completed between July 1 and June 30 of odd-numbered years, replacing the previous November to October timeframe.Client Alert

Ohio Med Spas: Peptide Do's and Do Not's

April 29, 2026Recent guidance from the Ohio Board of Pharmacy outlines key compliance requirements for med spas using peptides. While some peptide drugs are FDA approved, others are not or cannot be compounded. Med spa operators should ensure they source medications from licensed suppliers, avoid non-approved or “research use only” products, and follow all compounding and storage regulations to maintain compliance and avoid enforcement actions.Client Alert

Substance Use Disorder Providers: 42 CFR Part 2 Now Enforceable

April 15, 2026Updates to 42 CFR Part 2 are now enforceable, bringing significant changes to how substance use disorder (SUD) records are handled. The Final Rule aligns Part 2 more closely with HIPAA, introduces updated penalties, allows a single patient consent for treatment, payment, and operations, and adds new requirements for Notices of Privacy Practices. It also creates a formal definition of SUD counseling notes and imposes strict consent requirements for their use and disclosure. Providers should review and update policies to ensure compliance.
Older posts
Newer posts