Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

Ohio Public Interest Law: Finney Law Firm files Open Meetings suit in Columbus

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

A Finney Law Firm attorney  filed suit on Thursday against the Columbus Ohio Historic Resources Commission, seeking to enjoin violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act.

The Commission routinely fails to create minutes of its meetings and has failed to locate audio recordings of its meetings.

Our client is a Columbus resident whose efforts to navigate through the Commission’s Byzantine permitting regime have been hamstrung by the inability to review minutes of past Commission meetings.

Read the complaint below:

[scribd id=403531067 key=key-zq6eaudtynjudWABGXrI mode=scroll]

Gang of Five Emails Produced

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

Pursuant to the Agreed Entry and Order by Judge Ruehlman, Cincinnati Councilmembers Tamaya Dennard, Greg Landsman, Chris Seelbach, PG Sittenfeld, and Wendell Young – the self-proclaimed “Gang of Five” turned over emails between them.

What stands out is the substantial amount of public business being discussed and conducted in secret emails using private accounts rather than their city provided email accounts. We can only be so certain that we have in fact received all of the emails. As we know that Wendell Young deleted his text messages, we may never truly know whether the Gang of Five has turned over everything or not.

Read below or Use this dropbox link

[scribd id=403386369 key=key-VaOUJyWGyFAA09j3rQmy mode=scroll]

Finney Law Firm Heads to Ohio Supreme Court

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019, Curt Hartman, of counsel attorney with Finney Law Firm, will represent Pat Meade before the Ohio Supreme Court. This suit seeks enforcement of Ohio’s Open Meetings Law (R.C. 121.22) to prohibit local governments from voting by secret ballot.

Meade brought suit in 2016 against the members of the Village of Bratenahl’s Village Council for violating Ohio’s Open Meetings Act by voting via secret ballot during an otherwise public meeting.

The Ohio Coalition for Open Government; the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; and the Ohio Association of Broadcasters filed a friend of the court (amicus) brief in support of Ms. Meade as well.

In 2011, a Hamilton County Common Pleas Court found that secret ballot voting violates the Open Meetings Act. That same year, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion letter coming to the same conclusion. In this case, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and Court of Appeals ruled that secret ballot voting is permissible. The question has never previously been before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court will provide the final answer on this issue.

The Ohio Supreme Court live streaming feed is available here. The Court’s docket begins at 9 a.m. We expect oral argument in our case to begin at approximately 9:30 a.m.

Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s Open Meetings Law practice here.

Read our previous posts about the case here.

Learn more about the Ohio Coalition for Open Government here.

Learn more about the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press here.

Finney Law Firm and Matt Nolan Present: Property Valuation Challenges

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan and the Finney Law Firm will give a presentation to the Real Estate Investor’s Association of Greater Cincinnati (REIAGC) covering the property valuation challenge process.

The correct valuation of real property can mean the difference between success and failure for residential and commercial landlords, and their tenants.

On Thursday, March 7, our attorney and Matt Nolan will discuss the procedure for bringing a challenge, issues to consider prior to bringing a challenge, and next steps if the initial challenge is not successful.

Click on this link to the REIAGC’s website for more information or to register to attend. Registration is free for members, $35.00 for non-members.

Learn more about Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan here. Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s Property Valuation practice here.

Ohio Employment Law: How Soon Must an Employee File a Claim for Employment Discrimination or Harassment?

Author By Stephen E. ImmPosted on

Every legal claim that a person can file in civil court is subject to a “statute of limitations.” This is the period of time that the victim of a civil wrong has, after the claim arises, to bring legal action over the wrongdoing. If the claim is not filed within that specified statute of limitations, normally the claim is forever barred and cannot be raised thereafter.

In the field of employment law, some of these time periods are very short. In particular, the most important federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination and harassment – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – require fast action by the employee to preserve his or her rights. An employee who believes he or she has one of these federal claims must file a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within just 300 days of the date on which the discriminatory action occurred. If the employee does not file within this fairly short time frame, then his or her federal claim is extinguished.

For instance, if an employee is fired from a job, and believes that his or her discharge was the result of race, age, or sex discrimination, he or she must file a charge with the EEOC no later than 300 days after the date on which notice of the discharge was received.

Sometimes it can be unclear, however, as to exactly when a discriminatory act “occurred,” and thus when the 300 day period begins to run. And in some cases – like sexual harassment – the discriminatory action or conduct is ongoing, and it doesn’t necessarily occur at a single time and place. These cases can require close examination and detailed analysis to determine whether or not they are time-barred.

Furthermore, many states – like Ohio – have their own laws against employment discrimination and harassment, and these laws carry their own statutes of limitation that can be longer (or shorter) than the 300 day period governing many Federal claims. Thus, in some circumstances, even if a person’s federal claim is time-barred they may still be able to pursue a claim under state law.

Needless to say, the issue of timeliness is critically important in the field of employment law, and it can be a dangerous minefield for the unwary. Both employers and employees should always promptly consult with a qualified employment attorney as soon as they have notice of a potential claim.

Gang of Five Destroy Text Messages

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

Attorneys for Cincinnati’s Gang of Five informed us today that Wendell Young and Tamaya Dennard have destroyed text messages responsive to our public records and discovery requests. Dennard claims to have accidentally dropped her phone in a swimming pool and Young simply and intentionally deleted his text messages.

 

It is our understanding that the messages were destroyed after we filed suit and submitted discovery requests seeking the text messages.  City attorneys were informed over a week ago about this issue, but chose to remain silent until today.

Within the context of Ohio’s Public Records law, destruction of public records is punished by a forfeiture of $1,000 per record. Within the discovery context, sanctions include a finding of contempt of court, fines, and in extreme instances, jail time.

City lawyers claim that they are working to recover the messages if possible, but that leaves questions as to why they represented to the Court of Appeals just yesterday that they had turned over all of the text messages.

Finney Law Firm will also explore removal from office as a potential sanction for Young and Dennard.

Gang of Five Submits Text Messages to Court of Appeals for In Camera Review

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

Attorneys for the City of Cincinnati today gave the Court of Appeals copies of the text messages responsive to our April 9, 2018 public records request.

Our request seeks communications between members of the self-proclaimed “Gang of Five” (Councilmembers Landsman, Sittenfeld, Dennard, Seelbach, and Young) and any other council member related to the official business of the City of Cincinnati between March 16 and March 18, 2018 (the days the two Gang of Five press releases were put out); and their communications with any other councilmember from March 1 to March 19, 2018 relating to or regarding Harry Black or John Cranley.

Gang of Five member Greg Landsman

The production to the Court will remain under seal until the Court determines which, if any, of the text messages are public records pursuant to Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.

The Gang of Five argues that because the messages were sent and received using their personal phones, they cannot be considered public records, no matter their content.

In addition to the in camera production, the parties submitted joint stipulations of fact and law to aid the Court’s review. Read the stipulations below or on scribd here.

Notably, the Gang of Five admits to texting other councilmembers about John Cranley and Harry Black during City Council meetings; and that some of these text messages have not been produced in response to our public records request.

We will file a motion for summary judgment by next Monday, the Gang of Five will have one week to oppose our motion, and we will file our reply memo a week after that. Once fully briefed, the case will be set for decision by a three judge panel. We are hopeful that the case will be decided by early January.

Read the Complaint here.

[scribd id=393632777 key=key-L6J2EJpwn01xoHYGWoqM mode=scroll]

Ohio Employment Law: Can employers prohibit employees from recording in the workplace?

Author By Stephen E. ImmPosted on
These days, just about everyone is walking around with a device that can take pictures, videos, and audio recordings of anything at any time. In the workplace, this means employees can record conversations and events that take place at work. In most states, employees can record conversations they are having – including conversations with supervisors and co-workers – without disclosing that they are doing so. It can be done in secret, without breaking the law.
Many employers aren’t comfortable with the idea of employees making recordings or taking videos and pictures inside their facilities. They may have concerns about privacy or confidentiality. Or they may just not like the idea of this going on at work. Some employers have responded by instituting policies that prohibit such activities, and that provide for disciplinary action to be taken against employees who engage in them.
Are such policies legal? You may be tempted to respond, “Why wouldn’t they be? Doesn’t any property owner have the right to dictate what activities are allowed on his or her property?”
It’s not that simple when it comes to places of employment. This is because of a federal law called the National Labor Relations Act, or “NLRA”. This act guarantees the right of employees to engage in “concerted activity” for their mutual welfare or benefit. The National Labor Relations Board, which enforces the NLRA, has ruled that a blanket policy prohibiting ALL recording of workplace activities is illegal, because at least SOME such recordings might be part of a “concerted activity” that is protected by the NLRA.
For instance, if an employee wanted to take a picture of a message posted by the employer on a bulletin board, to share with her co-workers for the purpose of convincing them they needed to unionize, that could be considered protected activity under the NLRA. A broad policy that prohibited ANY picture taking on the employer’s property could therefore break the law, because it would prevent this kind of “concerted activity” by employees.
Prohibition of SOME kinds of recordings at work is fine. But employers need to be careful not to go too far. Be sure to consult with qualified employment counsel if you have questions about this area.
1 … 34 35 36 37 38 … 92