Tarkowsky Employment Law Bulletin: Winter 2018

Workers’ Compensation Statutory Changes:

Statute of Limitations:

• The Ohio Legislature has amended R.C. §4123.84 to reduce the timeframe in which an injured worker may file a workers’ compensation claim from two years to one year. Thus, for all new claims with dates of injury on or after September 29, 2017 (the effective date of the change), a claimant MUST file the injury claim within one year.

Claimant’s Attorneys’ Statutory Fee Increase:

• R.C. §4123.512 increases the statutory maximum attorneys’ fee to an injured worker’s attorney for successfully pursing a court appeal involving a workers’ compensation issue from $4,200 to $5,000.

Handicap Reimbursement Program:

• Employers are now permitted to derive more of a benefit from the BWC’s Handicap Reimbursement Program after settling a claim. Previously, state-fund employers were hesitant to settle since the full settlement would be charged to the employer’s experience without taking advantage of the handicap statute’s benefits per Revised Code §4123.34. Now, the handicap discount will be applied to settlements as well.

Payments to Incarcerated Dependents:

• R.C. §4123.54 has long stated injured workers cannot receive workers’ compensation benefits while imprisoned in a federal or state correctional institution. This new law modifies this statute to provide that dependents of injured workers are also not entitled to receive such benefits if they are incarcerated.

Firefighters: Presumption of Cancer Claim:

• Effective April 6, 2017, R.C. §4123.68(X) was created to make it easier for firefighters who are diagnosed with cancer to prove their workers’ compensation claims. The statute states that a firefighter who is exposed to certain carcinogens for at least six years and develops cancer, then that cancer is presumed to be a compensable claim. The presumption is, however, rebuttable.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Estée Lauder Companies, Inc.

• In this current case, EEOC alleges that Estée Lauder’s parental leave policy unlawfully discriminates against men. The Company’s policy provided female employees with greater benefits (and paid leave time) than males following the birth of his/her child. As a result, since the policy was not uniformly applied to both genders, it is alleged that the policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex.
• This case reinforces the idea that all employment policies should be uniformly applied to all employees regardless of gender, race, ect.