Blog

Columbus, Ohio – September 27, 2023 – Attorneys Bob DeRose and Brian R. Noethlich from Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP, have taken legal action on behalf of Jodi Radabaugh and Barbara Vernon from Marietta, Ohio, filing a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. The lawsuit alleges age discrimination under federal and state laws. This lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in Columbus, alleges that JPMorgan Chase Bank violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Ohio Laws Against Discrimination (OLAD) by discriminating based upon age, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliating against its employees, during Ms. Radabaugh’s and Ms. Vernon's employment. Jodi Radabaugh, 51, residing in Waterford, Ohio, worked for JPMorgan Chase Bank for nearly three decades until her alleged wrongful termination in April 2022. Barbara Vernon, 65, a resident of Marietta, Ohio, had been with the Bank since 1998. JPMorgan Chase Bank compelled Ms. Vernon to transfer branches and reduced her hours and compensation, the lawsuit alleges, solely because of her age. A third female employee, Leslie Hibbitts suffered the same alleged age discrimination, and was forced to resign. Ms. Hibbitts, however, may not bring her claims in Court, but must proceed with private arbitration out of the public’s view, due to an arbitration agreement JPMorgan Chase Bank required her to sign years ago. The lawsuit alleges incidents of age-related discrimination, including derogatory, ageist comments made by a supervisor, differential treatment of older workers in terms of scheduling and benefits, and a hostile work environment designed to push out older employees. The plaintiffs seek various remedies, including a declaration of age discrimination, compensation for lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and legal costs. Bob DeRose, plaintiffs’ trial attorney who has represented workers for over 30 years, emphasizes the core issue in this case: "Our clients, Jodi Radabaugh, Barbara Vernon, and Leslie Hibbitts have been treated unfairly solely because of their age. No one should have to endure a hostile work environment or be forced out of employment after many years of service simply because they are older. This lawsuit serves as a reminder that age discrimination is unlawful, and we are committed to seeking justice for our clients and holding employers accountable." Media Contact: For media inquiries, please reach out to: Bob DeRose Phone: (614) 221-4221 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

Columbus, OH, December, 19, 2022 – The law firms of Brian G. Miller Co., L.P.A. and Barkan, Meizlish, DeRose & Cox, LLP – both based in Columbus, Ohio – are pleased to announce a settlement of $665,000 on behalf of more than 30 plaintiffs in a collective and class action dispute over unpaid wages against the owners of Dee Jays BBQ Ribs and Grille, which is based in West Virginia.  The settlement of the dispute (Case No. 5:22-cv-00006-JPB), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, was approved by Judge John P. Bailey on December 15, 2022.  As a result of the settlement approval, the case was also dismissed with prejudice (settlement and dismissal order attached for reference). The lawsuit was originally filed on January 3, 2022, by plaintiff Chasity D. Adkins on behalf of herself and other current and former employees of Mt. Nebo Foods, LLC, and Dewey J. Guida Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Dee Jay’s BBQ Ribs & Grille.  The suit alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law, and the West Virginia Payment & Collections Act and sought relief and punitive damages against the defendants. According to the suit, the defendants withheld up to 3% of each employee’s total sales for each shift to be paid out as tips and subsequently shared between managers, kitchen staff, and hosts/hostesses.  This led to servers having to put their own tips into the pool, which most of the time resulted in them being paid less than both federal ($7.25 per hour) and state minimum wages ($8.75 per hour). As a result, the suit explained, “approximately $4,000 in tips in a respective week could be shared between employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips.”  Last week’s settlement and dismissal effectively resolved these allegations, delivering monetary damages to be divided among the class of plaintiffs. Attorneys for the plaintiffs issued a joint statement to comment on the settlement and dismissal: “We are pleased with the settlement and the opportunity for closure that this outcome brings for our clients.  We hope it sends a strong message to employers, especially in hospitality and food service, that minimum wage laws must be acknowledged and followed. We also hope it allows employees who believe they are paid incorrectly to recognize their options in recovering what they are owed.” Plaintiffs in this case were represented by Adam L. Slone of Brian G. Miller Co, LPA, as well as Bob DeRose and Jacob Mikalov of Barkan Meizlish DeRose & Cox, LLP. # # # About Brian G. Miller Co., L.P.A. Brian G. Miller Co., L.P.A., was established in 2004 when Brian Miller decided to start his own law practice. His goal was to create a law firm that delivers legal services reflective of his experience, ability, and a steadfast commitment to exceptional quality and client satisfaction.  At the law office of Brian G. Miller Co., L.P.A., we provide our clients with effective legal representation by placing a strong emphasis on diligent investigation and by utilizing a thoroughly academic approach in preparing cases. Members of our firm are experienced not only with case management and claims processing, but also with the type of detailed legal research that exceptional client representation requires. The firm carries a healthy, but manageable active client caseload that ensures we have the time to get to know each client personally, while also ensuring our ability to pay careful attention to the details of each and every case. Brian G. Miller Co., L.P.A., is best known for handling plaintiff's serious personal injury claims, wrongful death claims, and other catastrophic injury litigation, as well as a growing practice representing employees in wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other employment regulations.   Visit www.bgmillerlaw.com for more information. About Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox LLP. The law firm of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP is over sixty years old, with a national practice, focused on wage and hour/overtime litigation, Ohio workers’ compensation, Social Security Disability, and personal injury/medical malpractice. The firm and individual attorneys within the firm appear on lists of the best law firms and attorneys in the nation. Through their representation of individual employees as well as the injured and the disabled, the firm aims to protect the rights of working people on and off the job. They represent clients’ interests in federal and state court, before federal and state administrative agencies, at the collective bargaining table, and in state legislatures and the United States Congress. The attorneys and professional staff of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP are fully committed to securing justice for all of their clients.  Visit www.barkanmeizlish.com for more information.

What is Wage Theft? Wage Theft is when an employer neglects to pay their employees for all of their time at a fair price. One of the most common instances of wage theft is when an employer pays an employee less than the minimum wage required in that specific area. Additionally, other common forms of wage theft include employees who have their tips stolen, receive pay “under the table” or off the books, employees not paid fair overtime pay, and employees who are forced to work off the clock for any amount of time. These are just a few of the most common examples of wage theft committed in the United States, but any form of shorting an employee’s pay is considered wage theft and is therefore illegal. If you suspect that your employer is stealing your wages, then you are entitled to compensation, and the unpaid wage attorneys at Barkan Meizlish are here to help you get it. Contact us today for your free consultation and be on your way to recovering your stolen wages. Wage Theft Statistics Wage theft is a major problem in the United States and especially in the state of Ohio. It is so common that it has likely happened to you at some point in your life and is nearly guaranteed to have happened to at least one person you know. Approximately $50 billion in wages are stolen by U.S. employers nationwide every year. That number is enough to provide 1.2 million people with employment and pay them $20 per hour. In comparison, the combined robberies, motor vehicle thefts, larcenies, and burglaries added up to less than $14 billion in 2012.  States, along with the Federal Department of Labor, recovered approximately $933 million in stolen wages that same year, less than 2 percent of what was taken from hard-working employees. These statistics show just how damaging wage theft is to the average American household’s quality of life, the economy of Ohio, and the national economy as a whole. Thankfully, people are fighting the war against wage theft. While we are still a long way from completely eradicating the problem, some states have taken significant action to address the issue and recover those wages that have been stolen from their residents. New York has the strongest anti-wage theft laws in the country and has even passed a Wage Theft Prevention Act to closely monitor employees’ pay through mandatory reporting on behalf of the employer. State attorney generals in 45 states have recovered $14 million in stolen wages. In addition, private attorneys like those at Barkan Meizlish have recovered $467 million in class-action lawsuits, while the U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $280 million. Unfortunately, this hasn’t even put a dent in the estimated $50 billion stolen from hard-working employees annually, which is why we here at Barkan Meizlish are still fighting hard to prevent wage theft across the state of Ohio. Ohio Wage Theft The state of Ohio has ranked second in the nation when it comes to workers reporting wages lower than the minimum wage. Wage theft is a huge problem in Ohio and has detrimental effects on the lives of our friends and neighbors. Not only does wage theft reduce the quality of life of those affected, but it has detrimental effects on our state’s economy. When an employer steals from their employees, they steal from everyone in the state because millions of dollars are unaccounted for, meaning there is less money to allocate for infrastructure, education, and governmental assistance. If you or somebody you know has experienced wage theft in Ohio, you need to contact an experienced wage theft lawyer like those found at Barkan Meizlish. Columbus Wage Theft Lawyer Wage theft hurts the national economy as well as the economy of the state of Ohio. Our home was founded by hard-working pioneers, and so we find it truly ironic that so many of the employers in the state are stealing from their employees regularly. You have a duty as a resident of Ohio to report unfair theft of wages in order to uphold a higher standard of living for yourself and your fellow Americans. Here at Barkan Meizlish, we work with employees to help them recover the wages that they have worked for. Contact us today for your free consultation with a professional wage theft lawyer in Ohio and be on your way to recovering what is rightfully yours.

Work History and Your Social Security Disability Claim: The circumstances that lead someone to apply for Social Security Disability Insurance ( SSDI) vary. The strenuous application process includes a series of difficult questions. These questions include a request for a detailed work history. This may seem counter-intuitive, as individual’s applying for SSDI can no longer work. However, understanding the application process and questions can help you complete your application as effectively as possible. Need to Knows: SSDI applications require your work history for several reasons. Namely, work history helps the Social Security Administration (SSA) determine: Eligibility for SSDI based on your past income taxes and That you can no longer perform the tasks required at your previous jobs or other “substantial gainful activity.” These two factors are key to determining whether you will receive SSDI benefits. SSDI is a tax-funded program. Evaluating an individual’s past capacity to pay into the system, or that a family member has paid into the system, is part of the application process. Work history helps verify payment into the SSDI system, as this tax is taken out of paychecks. Your actual ability to work or participate in “substantial gainful activity” is equally important to the SSA. When the SSA evaluates your work history and your application, they are looking to see if your disability or injury affects your ability to earn income. For instance, if you worked in one field for your entire career before your disability began impairing your work, it may be difficult to switch industries. The Administration may ask for more specific information on your previous work experience, including information on daily tasks and expectations. Now What? The SSDI/SSI application process is difficult. We want to help. Our SSDI attorney may be able to help with the application process, as well as with the appeals process. Contact our office today for your free consultation or send us an email at info@barkanmeizlish.com.

Last night, associate attorney Sam Marcellino participated in WSYX ABC 6's "Ask the Attorney." Socially distant, safe, and ready to help Ohioans! Ask the Attorney occurs on Wednesday evenings between 5:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. You can call in at 614-481-6848

ADA Accommodations During COVID-19 For many Americans,returning to work amidst the COVID-19 crisis causes concern for the health and safety of themselves their families. Since the declaration of a global pandemic, America’s most vulnerable citizens have been at the forefront of conversation about preventing the spread. Many “healthy” citizens are not considered at-risk for COVID-19, while those with pre-existing conditions are especially susceptible. Nevertheless, America is re-opening its economy. This leaves individuals with disabilities and pre-existing health conditions in an unwinnable battle. Should they attempt to return to work despite their condition or continue to stay home and risk income? Will the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) help them? Limitations of the ADA We recommend that if you have health and safety concerns, you express those concerns in writing to your employer. If you have an underlying medical condition or care for someone who does,  contact your doctor to ask about accommodations under the ADA. The ADA prevents employers from denying employment based on an individual’s status as disabled. The ADA also calls for employers to provide sufficient accommodations for those individuals. New difficulties will continue to rise for disabled individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic and foreseeable future. Employment laws in America are about to undergo an unprecedented wave of new applications, potential violations, and changes. How can employees trust their employer will respect and comply with laws, when the laws themselves are not necessarily equipped to protect them in these uncertain times? What’s Next? It is hard to give an affirming answer to employees during uncertain times. However, workers can contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to file a complaint if their employer is not adhering to safe practices and may explore the possibility of a workers’ compensation claim if the worker contracts the COVID-19 as a result of returning to work at the employer’s insistence.

Updates for DACA Recipients in 2020 On June 18, 2020, another long-awaited Supreme Court ruling regarding the status of those participating in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was decided. The decision was made up of a variety of different elements including holding that the Trump administration did not properly terminate the existing DACA program, that DACA program as of the decision will be completely restored as it existed prior to the rescission in 2017, and, most importantly, that current DACA recipients will continue to be protected from deportation and have their employment authorized. Also, new DACA applicants will be able to apply for deportation protection and employment authorization as soon as the DHS implements the Supreme Court decision. The much-deliberated DACA recipients are undocumented individuals that were brought into the United States as children under 16. Individuals that qualify for the program receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and will become eligible for a work permit. To qualify for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their criminal records as well as must have completed certain educational requirements. It should be noted that individuals in the program don’t necessarily receive citizenship status through participation in DACA, just the deferral of deportation actions. The program was started in 2012 under President Obama amidst an elevated amount of undocumented high school graduates in the US. Presently, approximately 700,000 people nationwide are participants in the DACA program and 3,880 of them live in Ohio alone. The Supreme Court decision regarding the program arose from President Trump attempting to completely rescind the program through an Executive Order in September of 2017. The 5-4 decision comes as good news for some employers as they can continue to legally employ DACA recipients. However, DACA participants should note that they need to file timely applications to renew their protections.  The decision still raises some questions. The Supreme Court did not discuss or decide on the general legality of DACA.  Because of this, the decision essentially reads as saying that DACA participants are safe in the United States “for now” and leaves open the possibly for another decision to change the status of the DACA program and its participants in the future.   - Audrey Bidwell

For Immediate Release: COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE OHIO GOREMATORY, LLC LORAIN COUNTY OHIO, May 18 th, 2020- Attorneys with Barkan Meizlish DeRose Wentz McInerney Peifer, LLP have filed a Collective Action lawsuit against the Ohio Gorematory, LLC in Loraine County Common Pleas court. The Ohio Gorematory, based in Lorain County, Ohio, is a seasonal haunted house. The complaint’s defined plaintiff class includes employees who worked for the Ohio Gorematory, LLC between May 12, 2017 until present, and names the company Ohio Gorematory, LLC and each of the owners as Defendants. An amended complaint was filed on May 22nd The Complaint brings claims of wage theft and minor labor law violations against the owners, citing the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 4111 et seq., (“the Ohio Wage Act”), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (“OPPA”), O.R.C. § 4113.15 (referred to collectively as “the Ohio Acts”), Ohio minor labor laws, O.R.C §§ 4109 et seq. These violations include employees, called “scare actors,” not being paid for their work either entirely or in part, not paying the Ohio state minimum wage, and working long days with improper breaks for minors. Individuals who believe themselves affected by this action can contact Barkan Meizlish DeRose Wentz McInernery Peifer, LLP via email at consents@barkanmeizlish.com or at 800-274-5297. Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Jessica Doogan, official statement: “Wage theft is a pervasive issue that should not, and cannot, be tolerated in any form. This case is especially egregious, as the employer here took advantage of high school age minors that were looking for a fun way to make extra money during the Halloween season. We intend to fight for our clients to receive the unpaid wages they are owed and will work with our clients and local authorities to pursue criminal prosecution of this employer for the child labor law violations it committed.” You can read a copy of the complaint here. For more information on the lawsuit and the opt-in process, you can refer to our Wage and Hour department website here.

Recent Law Changes and LGBT Worker Protections Using the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that it unlawful to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity. Now LGBTQ+ workers have a legal recourse to pursue workplace discrimination claims, even in states that do not already have protections in place. The 6-3 decision was a consolidation of three cases: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. The majority ruled this way as they reasoned that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”   To prove an employment discrimination claim, an employee must prove either disparate treatment or discriminatory harassment. Generally, this means an employee must prove they are a member of a protected class, that their employer or workplace harasser knew that they were a member of a protected class, that they were harmed by the actions of their employer or harasser, and finally, that others of that class were similarly treated or that the harassment was because of their status as a member of a protected class. The Supreme Court also held that although there can be multiple “but for” causes of employee discrimination, termination, or harassment, if any of them are because of a protected classification then there has been a violation of federal law.   This landmark case will be a drastic change for the 27 states that prior to this decision did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. These states include: Arizona, Michigan, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. This may mean employers in these states will need to offer new anti-discrimination training and update their employee handbooks regarding gender and sexuality issues in the workplace. However, this decision does not provide all the answers that employees will need regarding gender and sexuality-minorities in the workplace. The Supreme Court themselves noted there will likely be more cases in the future that further addressing the extent and influence of this opinion. For example, the disputes over restrooms and other gender-specific facilities being available for transgender employees may still be an issue as well as mandating certain healthcare benefits for transgender employees and potential religious liberty claims.   -Audrey Bidwell

Updates as of 2/2/2021 The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Susan D. Morrison, granted Plaintiffs’ FLSA 216(b) motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiffs, three Nationwide Children’s’ Hospital psychometricians who brought federal and Ohio wage claims against the Defendant for failing to pay them and their similarly situated co-workers for work performed before and after their scheduled shift and failing to pay all hour over 40 in a workweek at 150% of their regular rate. All psychometricians who are or have been employed by Nationwide Children’s Hospital over the last three years are now eligible to receive communications regarding joining the suit. Morris, et al., v. Nationwide Children’s Hospital 2021 WL 320740 (S.D. OH February 1, 2021). The decision can be found by clicking this link: MORRIS et al v NATIONWIDE CHILDRENS_2021WL320740 Original Post Below: For Immediate Release: COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST NATIONWIDE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL On June 24, 2020 Attorneys with Barkan Meizlish DeRose Wentz McInerney Peifer, LLP filed a federal collective and Ohio class action Complaint against Nationwide Children’s Hospital. According to the Complaint, Nationwide Children’s Hospital (“NCH”) participated in acts of wage theft against employees in the Psychometric position. These violations include failure to compensate employees for all hours worked and failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act , O.R.C. §§4111.01., 4111.03 and 4111.10, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act . Natalie Morris, a psychometrician, brought this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former NCH psychometricians who worked for NCH since June 24, 2017. Originally, an unnamed NCH psychometrician filed a wage theft complaint against NCH with the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”). In response to that complaint the DOL investigated. While the substance of that investigation is not public, the DOL and NCH are attempting to resolve all the psychometrician’s wage claims by offering a lump-sum payment to affected employees. This lawsuit was brought by Ms. Morris to secure complete payment of all the hours she is owed.  She also brought this lawsuit to obtain payment for all the hours owed on behalf of all current and former NCH psychometricians who worked for NCH since June 24, 2017. Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Robert E. DeRose official statement: “Although the DOL investigated this case, it is apparent from the facts that Nationwide Children’s Hospital did not have a good faith basis for paying its psychometricians the way it did and that is wage theft. Wage theft in any form cannot be tolerated.  The hospital willfully paid these employees in violation of the wage laws and they should be paid for three years of time and liquidated damages.  The amount the hospital is trying to pay to get out of trouble is far below what the employees are due.  That is why the court will decide this case.” A copy of the complaint can be found here About Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP: The law firm of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP is over sixty years old, with a national practice, focused on wage and hour/overtime litigation, worker’s compensation, Social Security disability, personal injury, and medical malpractice.

Changing Workplace Culture during COVID-19 As with most aspects of life, COVID-19 has changed the daily routine of many workers. Today, the average worker is usually asked to have their temperature checked before beginning their workday. While the effectiveness of the practice in preventing the spread of the virus is debatable, the practice is currently required by many employers. Currently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that enforces civil rights in the workplace, has stated that while conducting temperature checks does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, it may violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and some state employment compensation laws. These temperature checks may be a violation of the FLSA because employees who have to spend several minutes waiting their turn for the check may be uncompensated for this time. The FLSA states that activities that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities” of an employee are compensable. While activities that are preliminary and postliminary to principle activities are not compensable under the FLSA. When an employee cannot perform his “regular” job without first engaging in the preliminary activity, then the preliminary activity becomes ‘integral and indispensable’ and therefore compensable. Temperature Checks and Compensation These temperature checks could be argued to be ‘principle’ or ‘preliminary’ depending on your perspective. Time spent by employees putting on and taking off protective gear and walking between their work station and the protective gear changing areas were both deemed compensable activities. So, if we could liken the temperature check to being a protective measure against infecting their fellow employees like putting on protective gear would likely be a principle and compensable activity. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that time spent waiting to put on protective gear is not a compensable activity. Since waiting in line for the temperature check will likely be the most time-consuming activity, this activity may be considered preliminary and non- compensable. Depending on how the federal or state courts rule on this issue, employers could face potential wage and hour claims related to this activity. It may be most advisable to employers to compensate the temperature checks before this becomes a litigated issue.   - Audrey Bidwell

Economic Impact Payments: Non-Filer Need to Knows The United States Federal Government has officially started rolling out Economic Impact Payments to eligible citizens. If you filed 2018 and 2019 taxes, and opted for direct refund deposits, your check should be direct deposited. If you opted to have your refund mailed, your stimulus check will be mailed to you.  However, if you did not file taxes in 2018 or 2019, you may be confused about what steps you need to take. Most recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance, Social Security Retirement, or survivor benefits will receive benefits automatically. On the other hand, some recipients of Federal aid programs are not eligible for the same automatic relief. Groups that do not qualify for automatic relief include: Individuals who receive veteran’s disability compensation, A pension, or Survivor benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or Individual’s whose income level was lower than federal tax filing requirements If you fall into any of the above categories, you must take additional steps to receive your economic impact payment. Here is what you need to do! First, please visit THIS page. You will be able to fill out the required “mini” tax return form. This form is used instead of a traditional tax return form. After you create your account and submit your application, watch your emails.  Once completed, you will receive a confirmation email. Once you have completed these steps, the process for receiving your economic impact payment check will be in motion. If you still have questions about how you may be impacted by these rules, a social security attorney can help.