Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

UPDATE: Ohio Businesses Remain Required to Post Exceptions to State-Wide Mask Mandate at All Entrances

Client Alert
August 3, 2020

On August 1, 2020, Lance D. Himes, Interim Director of the Ohio Department of Health, issued an amended order continuing the requirement that Ohio businesses post at all entrances any permitted exceptions they provide to customers, patrons, visitors, contractors, vendors and similar individuals to use facial coverings. 

The general list of permitted exceptions includes documented legal, life, health or safety considerations and limited documented security considerations.  This would include persons under 10 years old, those actively engaged in eating or drinking and actively involved in public safety.

The Interim Director’s amended order continued to mandate that businesses require employees to wear facial coverings, except for one of the following reasons:

  • Facial coverings in the work setting are prohibited by law or regulation;
  • Facial coverings are in violation of documented industry standards;
  • Facial coverings are not advisable for health reasons;
  • Facial coverings are in violation of the business’s documented safety policies;
  • Facial coverings are not required when the employee works alone in an assigned work area; or
  • There is a functional (practical) reason for an employee not to wear a facial covering in the workplace.

Businesses must provide written justification to the ODH or their local health department, upon request, explaining why an employee is not required to wear a facial covering in the workplace.

At a minimum, the Interim Director’s order states, facial coverings should be cloth/fabric and cover an individual’s nose, mouth and chin.

For additional information, please contact Adam D. Fuller, adfuller@bmdllc.com or 330.374.6737, or any member of the L+E Team at BMD.

Note: This is an update to a prior Client Alert posted on July 23, 2020: https://www.bmdllc.com/resources/blog/ohio-businesses-required-to-post-exceptions-to-state-wide-mask-mandate-at-all-entrances

mask mandatemask requirementCOVID-19coronavirusEmployement LawexceptionsState of Ohio
Client Alert

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

March 29, 2024The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.Client Alert

Latest Batch of Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Rules: What Providers Should Know

March 25, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past few months. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.Client Alert

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

March 21, 2024Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.Client Alert

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

March 15, 2024Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Update 3/14/24

March 14, 2024On March 1, 2024, a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama concluded that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) exceeded Congressional powers and enjoined the Department of the Treasury from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs. National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.). On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Older posts
Newer posts