Recent amendments to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure will affect the timeline of court proceedings throughout the state. Notably,
In October 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion and held that a company does not cease to exist after a merger but instead is absorbed and becomes a part of the successor company. Based on this holding, the Court explained that a noncompete agreement acquired in a merger may be enforced “as if [the new employer] stepped into the shoes” of the original company.
Courts often deal with the issue of whether a particular employee is exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The results are significant. Exempt employees are not entitled to overtime wages or the minimum wage. As well, an employer does not have the same record keeping obligations for exempt employees.
An employer and employee can agree to submit most job-related disputes, including claims for wrongful discharge and discrimination, to binding arbitration. Some employers view arbitration as a faster, less expensive alternative to court, and prefer to have their case decided by an arbitrator rather than a potentially sympathetic jury.
The issue of whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable is frequently litigated. Typically, non-compete cases turn on whether the agreement’s restrictions are reasonable in terms of duration and geographical scope. However, the First District Court of Appeals, which is located in Hamilton County, recently considered a different issue involving a non-compete — whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable after the initial employer merges with another company and the employee continues to work for that new company?
In an age where government budget cuts have become the norm, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is requesting an
Studies show that the recent decline in the U.S. economy has led to an upswing in the number of available
Disputes often arise between joint owners of property. The property at issue can range from a small five-acre farm to
With its recent passage of the Home Ownership and Protection Act, the Kentucky General Assembly redefined the lender/borrower relationship and