June 2012
Firm Logo 2010

Business Newsletter

Helping You Protect The Business You're Building 
In This Issue
Introduction
The State of Our State
Court Update
Article Corner
A Moment of Levity
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links

JeffFanger EHC

                 

            May was an exciting month for a couple of reasons here at Fanger & Associates LLC. First, we want to announce our first seminar with the Small Business Development Center will be held at their downtown location at 2390 Prospect Avenue on July 19. I will be providing attendees with information on intellectual property and how to protect it. For additional information or to ask about attendance, please email cring@fangerlaw.com.

 

            I also want to announce two new additions to our staff; Aaron Kimbrell as a Program Attorney and Caitlin Warner as our Law Clerk.

We are very pleased to welcome Aaron to our firm and add bankruptcy, credit card defense and foreclosure defense to our list of available legal services. Aaron has several years of legal experience and was previously the head of the bankruptcy department at Amourgis and Associates. He has already demonstrated his expertise by working on cases here from day one. We encourage anyone with questions regarding bankruptcy or credit card or foreclosure defense to contact Aaron at our Highland Heights office.

 

            We are also very happy to have Caitlin as a part of our staff and we appreciate her time spent here while she is working towards her J.D. from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Keep in mind that as our staff grows, so does our ability to further serve your needs. Please do not hesitate to give us a call with your legal questions, or to let your friends and family know that we can help. As always, call our Highland Heights office at 440.605.9641 to speak with one of our dedicated attorneys.

 

            Thank you for your readership and enjoy the start of summer.

 

 

Jeffrey J. Fanger


The State of Our State  

Changes in Ohio Law

SB 310 - Exotic Animal Bill becomes Law

 

            On June 6, 2012 Governor John Kasich signed into law Senate Bill 310 which regulates the sale and ownership of exotic animals in Ohio. This bill was brought to the attention of lawmakers when Terry Thompson of Zanesville released 50 exotic animals, and all were tragically killed for the safety of the public.

 

The bill will be effective as of September 6 and by the end of 2012, all exotic animals mentioned in SB 310 must legally be registered with their respective fee. "By October 1, 2013, owners would have to obtain a permit and pay a fee to the Ohio Department of Agriculture. As of January 1, 2014, owners without permits could have their animals seized through local humane societies."

 

            People who already own snakes shorter than 10 feet long will be able to keep and breed them, although those listed on the restricted list must be registered with the state. Those who do not already own restricted animals such as hyenas, elephants, rhinos, komodo dragons, alligators or crocodiles will not be able to obtain them. Owners with animals on the restricted species list will have to ensure them for between $200,000 and $1 million.

 

Historically, Ohio has been one of seven states that did not regulate individual ownership of exotic animals. In conjunction with a mandatory "criminal background check of current exotic-animal owners seeking permits," the new regulations should help to prevent future tragedies like the one in Zanesville.

 

 To read the full bill text, click here.

To read the story by The Columbus Dispatch, click here.

 

Candice BradleyCourt Update
Recent Court Decisions That Impact Your Business 

Thomas v. Cohr, Inc., 197 Ohio App.3d 145, 2011-Ohio-5916

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County

 

 

            In an Ohio Court of Appeals case decided November 18, 2011, Judge Sylvia Hendon held that the employee in question was not constructively discharged, the behavior of the employee's managers did not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the manager's statements to HR were not so false that they constituted defamation.

 

            The facts of the case began in 2006, when Kathleen P. Thomas was working for Genesis Technology Partners, which was purchased by Masterplan, Inc. that year. By January 25, 2006, Charles A. Dille was Thomas' direct supervisor, but during that time she "called Barry Bruns, Dille's boss, to tell him that she was overwhelmed with work." Dille then entered Thomas's workspace and "holler[ed]" that "she worked for him and should not 'go around' him." Thomas then spoke to Dian Danino, the manager of the hemodialysis unit, who spoke with Thomas and Dille together. Dille then apologized for his behavior and acknowledged his lack of professionalism. After the meeting, Thomas called Joseph Happ, district manager, and informed him of the events, causing Happ to meet with her the next day. Happ allegedly told Thomas that she should "give Dille a second chance, that it would be good for her, and that he would remove anything she did not like from her file."

 

             Both Happ and Bruns then looked into the incident and Dille admitted to them that he had raised his voice to Thomas and acted inappropriately. Dille was counseled by Happ and Bruns on appropriate work behavior and was told that both finger pointing and yelling were unacceptable. Thomas was unsatisfied with the investigation, so she called the official human-resources department for Masterplan Inc., located in California. In March of 2006, Eloisa Abarques arranged a conference call with Thomas and Happ to discuss Thomas' concerns.

 

            Thomas remained unsatisfied after the call and so continued to call the human-resources department in California. In April of 2006, Kathy Helbringer, an executive zone director for Masterplan, flew in to meet with Thomas. After a three hour meeting with Thomas, "Helbringer decided to allow Thomas to report to Greg Herr, rather than to Dille." In September of 2007, Herr and Bruns both learned that Thomas had been complaining about workplace service documentation and her hours and workload and that she had been trying to obtain a position in the hemodialysis department. The manager of the hemodialysis department did not want to hire Thomas and noted that "her negative comments had been a disruption to the department." As a result, Thomas' superiors put her on a 60-day work improvement plan in October of 2007, and by January of 2008, Thomas resigned.

 

            "The Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants," and so Thomas appealed with five assignments of error, all of which correlated with her argument that "the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees." Thomas' five assignments of error were that the trial court erred by judging in favor of Masterplan on her claims that she had been constructively discharged, that she had been wrongfully discharged in violation of Ohio public policy, that she endured her bosses intentional infliction of emotional distress, that Happ made defamatory statements, and that Masterplan had negligently supervised Happ.

 

             In her first assignment of error, Thomas felt she could prove that she was constructively discharged by "demonstrat[ing] that the former employer's actions made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have felt compelled to resign." To determine the validity of this claim, the court asked that Thomas prove that she felt she would be terminated in the short term. However, since she continued to work for two years after her initial confrontation with Dille and his alleged outburst, the court did not believe "any claim that her working conditions were utterly unbearable as a result of that incident." For this reason, her first assignment was overruled.

 

             Thomas' second assignment of error, that she had been wrongfully discharged in violation of Ohio public policy, would have to be backed by "a clear public policy by citation of specific provisions in the federal or state constitution, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law." Thomas could not, in this case, prove that any of her superiors had violated Ohio public policy and therefore her second assignment of error was overruled.

 

            In her third assignment of error, Thomas alleged that Masterplan, Happ and Helbringer had indeed intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her. While Thomas cited the initial conflict with Dille, Helbringer's lack of discipline against Dille and Masterplan's disciplinary action against her, "none of these examples would be actionable for purposes of an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because non of the cited conduct was 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Due to this lack of "extreme and outrageous conduct," Thomas' third assignment of error was overruled.

 

            Thomas' fourth assignment of error was that Happ defamed her by lying to Masterplan's HR department and by making false accusations of Thomas' trouble making with her co-workers. However, company records did show documented problems Thomas had with co-workers in the past and therefore Thomas could not prove Happ's statements to be false and "defamatory per se or [to have] caused special harm to the plaintiff." Her fourth assignment of error was accordingly overruled.

 

            Thomas' fifth and final assignment of error was that Masterplan negligently supervised Happ, which requires that "in such an action... the employee is individually liable for a tort against a third person who then seeks recovery from the employer." As the court did not find Happ guilty of defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress, this claim did not qualify and was overruled along with the previous four.

            

Article CornerLegalnewsPic

Recent News You Might Have Missed

Statehouse OKs Flury of Job-Creation Bills

Crain's Cleveland Business

June 11, 2012

 

            Governor John Kasich created the nonprofit JobsOhio in 2011 to encourage business development and long-term success in Ohio. Chris Xeil Lyons, the program's vice president referred to it as "an Ohio-pushed agenda," noting that it has seen "support on both sides of the aisle," from both Democrats and Republicans. In addition to the movies being filmed in Ohio for a tax boost, representatives have sent Kasich "a handful of other measures they believe will make the state more attractive to businesses," like "tax credits for telecommuting employees and for expanding businesses that move into vacant or abandoned buildings." Other legislation has been passed to allow corporate site selectors more freedom in choosing sites ready for renovation or development and additional bills aimed at job creation are in the works.

            Governor Kasich has already signed .HB 18, HB 327, HB 436, and HB 521 into effect which govern the aforementioned motion picture tax credits, tax credits for businesses moving into vacant buildings or hiring telecommuting employees and the SiteOhio program.

            SB 327 is also being reviewed, which would "raise the New Markets Tax Credit program's annual cap from $10 million to $50 million." The program provides incentive for investors to provide equity to community development groups in exchange for tax credit. The House is working on its own version of the bill, HB 558, and is also reviewing HB 511 which "would increase the amount of investment, New Markets and venture capital loan-loss tax credits available."

 

 

To read the bills, click here and search.

To read this article in its entirety, click here.

 A Moment Of Levity
 A little humor to brighten your day. . .
 
 
 
 
To see more daily snapshots visit www.jasonlove.com .
 
Firm Logo 2010  
The opinions and views expressed in this newsletter are solely those of the author of the article and/or Fanger & Associates LLC. Articles appearing in this newsletter are intended to provide broad, general information about the law. This newsletter is sent to clients and friends of Fanger & Associates LLC, as well as Ohio businesses and Ohio non-profit corporations as identified through their registration with the Ohio Secretary of State, including organizations with which Fanger & Associates LLC has no prior contact. Before applying this information to any specific legal problem, readers are urged to seek advice from an attorney. If you have any questions regarding any topic in this publication and you already have a lawyer, please contact your lawyer. If you do not already have counsel, please feel free to contact Fanger & Associates LLC and we will be happy to assist you.
ADVERTISEMENT ONLY