On January 12, 2021, Governor Mike DeWine signed into law House Bill (H.B.) 352, which makes significant and sweeping changes to how employment discrimination claims will be handled in the State of Ohio. H.B. 352 amends pertinent sections of Ohio Revised Code 4112, which contains Ohio’s employment discrimination laws, in the following ways.
On November 13, 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Interim Director of the Ohio Department of Health Lance Himes issued a new director’s order enhancing face covering requirements for Ohio retailers, adding mandatory oversight obligations for employers, and providing greater enforcement power for local health departments and law enforcement.
On May 29, 2020, Governor Mike DeWine and Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton issued the “Director’s Updated and Revised Order for Business Guidance and Social Distancing.” As expected, the new order extends many of the same requirements and guidelines previously in place through the (now expired) “Stay Safe Ohio” order, including requiring employees to wear face coverings except in limited circumstances, and sector-specific operating mandates. These requirements are now extended through July 1, 2020, with some notable changes and additions.
On May 14, 2020, Governor Mike DeWine announced an order to continue Ohio’s phased reopening of the state’s economy, adding daycare centers, summer camps, gyms, campgrounds, and pools to the list of businesses that may now reopen. Combined with the state’s prior Stay Safe Ohio and Responsible Restart Ohio orders, here is the most updated calendar for Ohio’s reopening
Following several other states, and at the direction of Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, Ohio Department of Health Director Dr. Amy Acton issued a shelter-in-place order for Ohio residents titled “Director’s Stay at Home Order.” The order went into effect on March 23, 2020, and will remain in place until 11:59 p.m. on April 6, 2020, unless rescinded or modified.
On December 12, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a sexual misconduct complainant’s fear of further contact with the respondent was not enough to support a claim against the university for deliberate indifference under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.