Can an employer make deductions from employee wages?

On the face it, the answer seems obvious: Of course! Employers make deductions from employee wages on a routine basis. Common examples that come to mind are for federal and state tax withholdings, or for court-ordered garnishments. Sometimes, employees authorize other deductions, such as for insurance or union dues. All of these examples share a common trait: They exist for the benefit of the employee or a third party.

But what about when an employer unilaterally docks an employee’s wages for items that benefit the employer, such as for a uniform, a background check, or for damage to employer property caused by an employee?

Generally, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law governing wages on a federal level, permits unilateral deductions that benefit the employer provided that those deductions do not reduce the employee’s wages below the minimum wage. This rule applies to both overtime non-exempt and exempt salaried employees, and employers who routinely reduce the wages of salary exempt employees below the federal requirement of $455 per week run the risk of losing the exemption.

While federal law may permit deductions from employee wages, applicable state laws can and often do restrict the ability of employers to make deductions that benefit the employer.  Ohio law prohibits employers from reducing the wages of employees for tools, damaged machinery, and uniforms absent written agreement with the employee. Going further than Ohio, Kentucky prohibits employers from deducting wages for things like breakage or property damage even when the employee authorizes the deduction. And of course, in both Ohio and Kentucky, employers should be wary of making deductions that reduce an employee’s wage to below the minimum wage.

The legality of deductions from employee wages is fact specific. Both employers and employees should be wary of wage deductions, as overzealous deductions could prove costly for pocketbooks and bottom lines.

In general, unemployment compensation is intended to provide relief for employees who involuntarily lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Ordinarily, therefore, employees who leave their jobs of their own accord do not receive unemployment benefits. But is there ever a circumstance when an employee can get unemployment after quitting or resigning?

The answer is yes. The law provides that if an employee quits “with just cause,” he or she can qualify for unemployment compensation benefits. What constitutes “just cause” for quitting one’s job? There are several ways in which this can occur.

First, there is the situation where an employee resigns because he or she is about to be discharged. The law provides that an employee who submits a resignation in lieu of being discharged is not disqualified from receiving benefits simply by virtue of the fact that he or she technically “resigned” his or her employment. An employee who is essentially told, “Resign or you will be fired,” can still get unemployment after resigning.

Secondly, if an employee’s terms or conditions of employment are made intolerable, that can constitute “just cause” for quitting. A good example of this is if an employee is forced to work in an atmosphere of pervasive sexual harassment that the employer refuses or fails to correct. In order to get unemployment in these circumstances, the employee will normally have to show that he or she first reported the intolerable working conditions, and gave the employer a fair opportunity to correct them.

Thirdly, if the employer makes significant changes to the employee’s compensation, or to key aspects of the employee’s job, and if those changes are disadvantageous to the employee, this can give the employee “just cause” to resign, and thus qualify him or her to receive unemployment after doing so. Some examples of this would be if an employee receives a demotion, or experiences a significant cut in pay, or if the employer imposes a significant travel requirement in the job that the employee previously did not have.

Like so much else in the law, the question of whether or not an employee can receive unemployment compensation when they resign is not always clear, cut and dried. Both employers and employees can benefit from having good legal counsel when confronted by these issues.

The Ohio Elections Commission has scheduled a preliminary review hearing on Finney Law Firm’s complaint alleging several and serial violations of Ohio campaign finance law by Aftab Pureval, his clerk of courts campaign committee, and its treasurer, Evan Nolan.

The hearing is scheduled for September 20, 2018 at 10 a.m. at the Ohio Elections Commission headquarters in Columbus, Ohio.

After reviewing the documents submitted, the Commission will decide to either: 1) find no violation; 2) find that there has been a violation; or 3) set the case for a full hearing to obtain additional testimony and evidence.

We appreciate that the Commission is taking this matter seriously and look forward to presenting our evidence in September. In the meantime, we anxiously await Mr. Pureval’s formal response to the charges.

Read the complaint online here.

[scribd id=386371224 key=key-A8VXnPRDnObSKBfg2tvx mode=scroll]

Finney law firm filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against Aftab Pureval, his campaign committee, and the treasurer, Evan Nolan.

The complaint points to receipts and expenditures by his Clerk of Courts Campaign that are obviously related to his congressional run. Federal and State law prohibit redirecting state campaign funds to a federal campaign.

Federal law limits contributions to Pureval’s federal campaign to $5,400, but contributions to the clerk of court’s campaign are unlimited. In an effort to take advantage of Ohio’s lack of contribution limits for clerk of courts campaigns, this year alone Pureval’s mother has donated $30,000 to the clerk of court’s campaign, and almost all of that money has been spent in support of Pureval’s congressional race.

But even before he announced his run for Congress, Pureval was spending his clerk of court’s campaign funds improperly. In the summer of 2017, just after taking his current job, he was traveling across the country testing the waters for a Congressional run. Those travel costs included airfare and a hotel stays in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Georgia.

As first reported in this Cincinnati Enquirer story, dual campaigns can be legal, but the two must remain separate. While Pureval’s D.C. attorneys suggest that “dividing” costs can be done legally, a review of the state and federal campaign reports makes clear that the two campaigns are not dividing joint costs;  the clerk of court’s campaign account has simply been placed into the service of the congressional campaign.

Since announcing his run for Congress, Pureval has used his clerk of court’s campaign fund to pay for a photographer to document his congressional campaign kickoff (footage that has been used in his campaign commercials); $16,000 for polling; a congressional campaign staffer; and thousands of dollars for travel.

The complaint, filed with the Ohio Election Commission on Friday,  sets forth violations of three sections of Ohio campaign finance law: converting contributions to clerk of courts campaign to the use of the federal campaign, and to other third parties; failure to file accurate reports of receipts; and failure to file accurate reports of expenditures.

In 2017, An Ohio judge was sentenced to ten days in jail for improper expenditures from his campaign account, paying for expensive meals and cigars.

Also in 2017, a California man was sentenced to one year in prison after organizing a money laundering scheme to support his son’s run for Congress.

We expect that a full investigation will reveal that this was not a mere “bookkeeping mistake” or “dividing costs” but was part of a calculated plan to evade federal and state campaign finance laws and illegally finance his congressional race.

Read the complaint on Scribd here or below.

Read the Cincinnati Enquirer’s coverage here.

[scribd id=386040687 key=key-Gb40Ap9FBSCMLYCl00C4 mode=scroll]

One of the many unfortunate outcomes of the subprime mortgage crisis has been that unscrupulous predatory investors scooped up broad portfolios of real estate at very low prices, and then re-sold them in troubled neighborhoods to unqualified buyers on land installment contract.

This had the dual effects of victimizing unknowledgeable and unqualified buyers and keeping many times unoccupied and dilapidated properties from re-entering the stream of commerce with qualified buyers.

One of those predatory investors has been Harbour Portfolio Advisors.  Their tactics have spawned a New York Times article on their predatory practices, a law suit from the City of Cincinnati that resulted in an injunction against their practices from Judge Robert Ruehlman (Hamilton County Case No. A1702044) and an ordinance with new land installment contract regulations from the City of Cincinnati.  It takes quite a track record to spur that kind of remedial activity.

The routine practiced by Harbour Portfolio appears to be:

  1. Selling the property to unknowledgeable and unqualified buyers on land installment contract,
  2. Receiving a down payment and some monthly payments from the buyers.
  3. Once one payment is missed, declaring the buyers in default and taking the property back.
  4. If the buyer is able to perform, refusing to cooperate in the conclusion of the sale, eventually forcing a default from the buyer, and moving back to Step #3.  (This is certainly what our client experienced)

Our firm recently represented a victim of Harbour Portfolio’s predatory practices, and obtained a judgment from Judge Jody Luebbers.  The result was that without further payment our client obtained clear title to the property, obtained a damages award from Harbour Portfolio, and also an award of his attorneys fees from Harbour Portfolio.

If you have been victimized by the unscrupulous tactics of Harbour Portfolio in Ohio or Kentucky or other predatory lenders or sellers, contact either Chris Finney (513-943-6655) or Julie Gugino (513-943-5669).

We are glad to “Make a Difference” in your property or lending dispute.

The City of Cincinnati has enacted a new series of restrictions on property owners selling under land installment contracts as Chapter 870 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code.

It appears to be a response to the questionable tactics of a single large investor who bought a significant number of properties in the subprime mortgage crisis, and then resold portions of the portfolio to unqualified buyers on land installment contract.  This investor/seller is Harbor Portfolio Advisors, against whom this firm has successfully litigated.  You may read more on that here.

The new ordinance provides:

  • Before selling a property on land installment contract, the vendor must first obtain a certificate of occupancy for the property (CMC 870-03).
  • The vendor must both deliver to the certificate of occupancy to the vendee and record the land contract within 20 days (CMC 870-04).
  • The vendor may not require the vendee to sign a quit claim deed to the vendor at the time of execution of the land installment contract (CMC 870-07(d)).
  • The name listed on the records of the Auditor is presumed to be the owner for purposes of enforcing the ordinance.
  • The remedies under the Ordinance include rescission of the land contract (meaning the vendee can get paid back to him sums paid thereunder), and actual damages, statutory damages of $5,000 per violation and the vendee’s attorneys fees incurred in pursuing his remedies under the ordinance.

For more information about enforcing your rights under the new land installment contract statute or suing Harbor Portfolio Advisors in Ohio or Kentucky, contact Chris Finney (513-943-6655) or Julie Gugino (513-943-5669).

Finney Law Firm has the honor to represent citizen journalist Patricia Meade before the Ohio Supreme Court in her efforts to expose the workings of her hometown’s government to public scrutiny.

In State ex rel. Meade v. Village of Bratenahl, we are appealing lower courts decisions that permit public bodies in Ohio to vote on any issue by secret ballot. The opportunity for mischief is readily apparent.

The Ohio Supreme Court accepts only approximately 5% of appeals, so just getting the case accepted is a major accomplishment. We are cautiously optimistic that the Ohio Supreme Court will be convinced by our argument and longstanding precedent and overturn the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals.

Today we filed our merits brief. Read the brief online here or below. We expect that one or more “friends of the court” (interest groups or others who are not a party to the case, but are concerned with the outcome) will also file a brief in support of our position (an amicus brief) in the coming days. The village will have thirty days to file their own brief, and then we will have fifteen days to file a reply.

This case is an important case for all Ohioans, as it will determine what, if any, information the people are entitled to know about how their elected officials vote on particular issues and whether citizens will have an ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their official action.

View all case filings on the Ohio Supreme Court website, here.

We expect the Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case sometime in early 2019.

Update – The Ohio Coalition for Open Government, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Ohio Association of Broadcasters filed an amicus brief today in support of our position. Read their brief here.

[scribd id=385107210 key=key-LlVsGVD75PeBy8u7osNx mode=scroll]

Ohio Revised Code Section 3503.06(C)(1)(a) declares that “Except for a nominating petition for presidential electors, no person shall be entitled to circulate any petition unless the person is a resident of this state and is at least eighteen years of age.”

Pretty straightforward, right? Not exactly.

Why? Because in 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson correctly determined that the law was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law:

Accordingly, the Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants from enforcing the residency requirement for circulators of petitions for candidates and initiatives set forth in Ohio Revised Code § 3503.06(C)(1)(a).

Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Husted, S.D.Ohio No. 2:13-cv-935, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184669, at *10 (Mar. 16, 2015)

This is also included in Chapter 11 of the Ohio Secretary of State’s Ohio Election Official Manual, “A circulator is not required to be an Ohio elector or an Ohio resident.”

So, while the law remains “on the books” it is not, in fact, the law.

Citizens in Charge involved a statewide initiative petition, but the injunction applies to the all enforcement of the residency requirement for any initiative or referendum petitions, and any candidate petitions.

Finney Law Firm has on numerous occasions co-counseled with the attorney for Citzens in Charge, Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and are disappointed that this case is not more well known among Ohio political activists.

The issue has come up recently relating to the Hamilton County Sales Tax petition effort, and ongoing efforts to return Cincinnati City Council to two year terms. And it appears that confusion abounds, even among experienced political hands.

If you are circulating a petition or considering using out of state circulators for a petition effort, and someone tells you that circulators must live in Ohio; politely let them know that they are wrong and ask them to stop spreading such misinformation. If the person spreading the misinformation is a government official, contact the petition committee so that they can engage their legal counsel.

Finney Law Firm has assisted in drafting petitions and litigating initiative and referendum efforts throughout Ohio. If you or your petition group need assistance, contact Christopher P. Finney at 513-943-6655 or use our online contact form.

Attorneys in the Cincinnati Solicitor’s office filed a motion to withdraw its prior filing opposing intervention by Derek Bauman and a motion for additional time to file a new response, in our suit alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act.

Bauman’s attorney Paul DeMarco raised the question of conflict in a letter July 17, 2018 letter, questioning whether the City’s response was on behalf of Dennary, Landsman Sittenfeld, Seelbach,  and Young; or if the Solicitor’s office would be filling a separate memo on their behalf. And if so, whether the Solicitor’s Office had obtained conflict waivers from their various clients.

Read the filings here and here.

Hon. Judge Ruehlman

Today Finney Law Firm, on behalf of our client Mark Miller, filed a memorandum in opposition to the recent motion filed by one-time City Council candidate Derek Bauman, to intervene in our Open Meetings Act suit against five members of the Cincinnati City Council.

Attorneys for the City of Cincinnati also filed a memorandum opposing the intervention.

Judge Robert Ruehlman has scheduled oral argument on the motion for July 30 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 300 of the Hamilton County Courthouse, 1000 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. The public is welcome to attend the oral argument.

We oppose intervention because the filing appears to be a poorly disguised effort at political gamesmanship rather than a sincere piece of litigation. Read the Motion to Intervene here. Read our memorandum here or below. Read the City’s memorandum here.

[scribd id=383979087 key=key-dda6L1oQ2UXSlIZtO4L1 mode=scroll]