On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 221 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2025), the United States Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule that a majority group plaintiff in a “reverse discrimination” Title VII case must present evidence of “background circumstances” that the plaintiff’s employer is the “unusual” employer that […]
Weston Hurd pleased to announce that Patrick Cannell and Brad Zebedis have been named partners. Patrick Cannell focuses his practice on insurance matters involving coverage and general liability defense. He is a frequent presenter on insurance coverage topics including case law updates, risk transfer, and business interruption claims. Learn more at: Patrick M. Cannell – […]
Weston Hurd’s 2025 Desktop Legal Primer for Ohio Claims serves as a comprehensive go-to-guide and useful reference tool. Researched and written by Weston Hurd attorneys, the Primer contains Ohio statutes, case citations, and covers topics involving: Claim Limitation Periods – Statutes of Limitation; Product Liability Statute of Repose; Construction Statute of Repose; Legal Malpractice Statute of Repose; Employment […]
On November 15, 2024, a Texas federal district court set aside and vacated the U.S. Department of Labor’s final rule that substantially increased the minimum salary threshold for employees who are classified as exempt under the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions. As discussed in a prior alert, the DOL issued the rule in April 2024, […]
Weston Hurd LLP is honored to be named by Best Lawyers® in its 2025 “Best Law Firms” rankings in both national and metropolitan categories. According to Best Lawyers, “Our Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of clients and professional reference evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys, industry […]
Congratulations to the Weston Hurd team of Sam Lauricia, Scott Lucas, and Matthew Miller. In a recent order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Court awarded Weston Hurd client Mann Construction legal fees plus costs incurred during a five-year litigation with the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department […]
We are pleased to announce the latest edition of Weston Hurd’s Architects & Engineers Newsletter is now available. The newsletter contains the following articles: Issues Confronting Engineering Firms that Act as Municipal Engineers Design and Accessibility Requirements Under the Fair Housing Act Download the 2024 Architects and Engineers Newsletter by clicking here Should you have any […]
Amended House Bill 179 (effective October 24, 2024) addresses the issue of vicarious liability in tort actions. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which an injured party can sue either the primarily liable party (such as an agent, servant, or employee) or the secondarily liable party (such as a principal, master, or employer), or both. […]
On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 221 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2025), the United States Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule that a majority group plaintiff in a “reverse discrimination” Title VII case must present evidence of “background circumstances” that the plaintiff’s employer is the “unusual” employer that “discriminates against the majority” in order to meet their initial burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework.
In a unanimous opinion, the Court reasoned that Title VII’s disparate treatment provision draws no distinction between majority group plaintiffs and minority group plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that the provision establishes protection for every individual without regard to the individual’s membership in a majority or minority group, and that Congress did not intend to impose specific requirements on majority group plaintiffs. Instead, Title VII’s protections are available to “any individual” when experiencing an adverse employment action based on protected characteristics.
As a result of this decision, employers should be aware that there is no heightened burden for majority group plaintiffs when they bring a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Rather, majority and minority group plaintiffs are subject to the same standard. This ruling may result in an increase in Title VII litigation from majority group plaintiffs.
For more information about this decision, please contact Rina Russo or one of the other employment law attorneys at Weston Hurd LLP.
Weston Hurd pleased to announce that Patrick Cannell and Brad Zebedis have been named partners.
Patrick Cannell focuses his practice on insurance matters involving coverage and general liability defense. He is a frequent presenter on insurance coverage topics including case law updates, risk transfer, and business interruption claims. Learn more at: Patrick M. Cannell – Weston Hurd
Brad Zebedis provides legal counsel to clients in matters involving education law and labor and employment. In addition to providing day-to-day counsel, Brad represents public sector clients before a variety of arbitrators, boards, and administrative agencies. He also provides guidance in all stages of collective bargaining. In the private sector, Brad provides general counsel to employers and defends employers before the NLRB. Learn more at: Brad M. Zebedis – Weston Hurd
Congratulations Patrick and Brad on this well-deserved recognition!
Weston Hurd’s 2025 Desktop Legal Primer for Ohio Claims serves as a comprehensive go-to-guide and useful reference tool. Researched and written by Weston Hurd attorneys, the Primer contains Ohio statutes, case citations, and covers topics involving:
On November 15, 2024, a Texas federal district court set aside and vacated the U.S. Department of Labor’s final rule that substantially increased the minimum salary threshold for employees who are classified as exempt under the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions. As discussed in a prior alert, the DOL issued the rule in April 2024, and it increased the salary basis for such exemptions from $684/week to $844/week in July 2024, with another increase to $1,128/week scheduled for January 2025, and further automatic index increases beginning in July 2027. The rule also increased the salary level for the highly compensated employee exemption.
As a result of this decision, employers will not need to adjust salaries in January 2025 to comply with the vacated rule, and the minimum salary level will return to the amount in effect prior to the DOL’s final rule – $684/week ($35,568/year) for executive, administrative, and professional exemptions; and $107,432/year for the highly compensated employee exemption.
The court reasoned that the DOL’s new rule exceeded its authority under the FLSA because it effectively displaced the FLSA’s duties test with a predominant salary-level test for a significant percentage of otherwise exempt employees. The DOL has the option to appeal the decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the upcoming change in presidential administrations makes it unlikely that the DOL will seek to revive the rule.
For more information about this decision regarding the salary threshold for exempt employees, please contact Russell Rendall or one of the other employment law attorneys at Weston Hurd LLP.
Weston Hurd LLP is honored to be named by Best Lawyers® in its 2025 “Best Law Firms” rankings in both national and metropolitan categories.
According to Best Lawyers, “Our Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of clients and professional reference evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys, industry leader interviews and review of additional firmographic highlights provided by law firms as part of the formal research submission process.”
Overall, Weston Hurd garnered 15 practice rankings, including a National ranking in Insurance Law and Tier 1 Metropolitan rankings in:
The depth and breadth of Weston Hurd’s practice areas was further distinguished with metropolitan rankings in employment law-management, labor law-management, medical malpractice law – defendants, personal injury litigation-defendants, personal injury litigation-plaintiffs, product liability litigation-defendants, and real estate law.
The full list of Weston Hurd’s rankings include:
Congratulations to the Weston Hurd team of Sam Lauricia, Scott Lucas, and Matthew Miller. In a recent order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Court awarded Weston Hurd client Mann Construction legal fees plus costs incurred during a five-year litigation with the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of Justice-Tax Division.
Following Weston Hurd prevailing for its client in the U.S. District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Weston Hurd filed a motion requesting the Court award Mann Construction reimbursement of legal fees and costs incurred during the multi-year litigation. The USDC concurred granting Weston Hurd’s motion on November 1, 2024 (see Mann Construction, Inc., et al. v. United States of America 1:20-cv-11307).
The dispute centered on a purported listed transaction and the IRS’s failure to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures when it issued Notice 2007-83. Weston Hurd attorneys Sam Lauricia, Scott Lucas, and Matthew Miller argued the notice violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements when the listed transaction Notice was issued without an opportunity for a formal comment period. In March 2022, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and in a unanimous opinion, reversed a district court ruling in the matter of Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1500 (6th Cir. 2022). In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit stated, “Because the IRS’s process for issuing Notice 2007-83 did not satisfy the notice-and-comment procedures for promulgating legislative rules under the APA, we must set it aside.”
The District Court granted Mann Construction’s request for legal fees and expenses pursuant to IRC Section 7430. IRC Section 7430 sets forth rules for making qualified offers. Prior to commencing the litigation, the result of which Mann Construction was the prevailing party, Mann Construction tendered a qualified offer to the IRS. The qualified offer proposed that the IRS settle, the all-or-nothing dispute, for $1.00. The IRS did not respond to the qualified offer, thus paving the way for the Court’s award of attorney fees and costs in the amount $221,838.40 announced on November 1, 2024.
***
We are pleased to announce the latest edition of Weston Hurd’s Architects & Engineers Newsletter is now available.
The newsletter contains the following articles:
Download the 2024 Architects and Engineers Newsletter by clicking here
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Weston Hurd partners and the newsletter editors – David Patterson and Frederick Bills
Amended House Bill 179 (effective October 24, 2024) addresses the issue of vicarious liability in tort actions. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which an injured party can sue either the primarily liable party (such as an agent, servant, or employee) or the secondarily liable party (such as a principal, master, or employer), or both. Bill 179 stipulates that for a plaintiff to prevail in a vicarious liability claim against a secondarily liable party, (such as an employer) the primarily liable party (employee) must have committed the act or omission within the scope of their relationship with the secondarily liable party.
However, the primarily liable party is not a necessary party to the lawsuit unless the claim involves specific professional malpractice, such as medical, dental, optometric, chiropractic, or legal malpractice. Bill 179 clarifies that in most vicarious liability cases, the action can proceed against the principal even if the agent is not a party to the lawsuit.
Additionally, Ohio courts have consistently held that a vicarious liability claim cannot survive if the direct claim against the agent is time-barred by the statute of repose. For instance, in Clawson v. Heights Chiropractic Physicians, L.L.C., the Ohio Supreme Court found that a vicarious liability claim for medical malpractice against a physician’s employer was precluded when a direct claim against the physician is time-barred.
Prior to Bill 179, the Clawson decision arguably required filing suit against the employees of a business who were participating in the negligence of the business in order to hold the business vicariously liable. Id. Bill 179 will affect lawsuits by potentially simplifying the process for plaintiffs to pursue claims against employers or principals without needing to include the primarily liable party (employee) in the lawsuit, except in cases involving the specified professional malpractice claims.
Also, R.C. §2305.15(A) provides for tolling the statute of limitations when a defendant is out of state, absconds, or conceals themselves. This provision applies to claims against the individual who absconds or conceals themselves but does not extend to vicarious liability claims against other parties, such as employers or principals, unless the specific conditions of the physician-patient relationship are met. Stafford v. Columbus Bonding Ctr. However, any tolling of the limitations period during the defendant’s absence or concealment does not apply to the statutes of repose.
Only in the context of medical malpractice and related vicarious liability claims, the tolling of the statute of limitations is influenced by the “termination rule.” This rule tolls the statute of limitations for vicarious liability claims against a hospital while the physician-patient relationship continues. Elkins v. Durrani.
Ohio law generally presumes that statutes operate prospectively unless they are expressly made retrospective. R.C. §1.48. The Ohio Constitution prohibits the General Assembly from passing retroactive laws that affect substantive rights. Therefore, unless Bill 179 explicitly states that it is to be applied retroactively, it would only apply to cases arising after its enactment. Bill 179 does not explicitly state that it is to be applied retroactively. Therefore, the first step in the two-part test for retroactivity is not satisfied, as there is no clear proclamation of retroactive application in Bill 179. Even if Bill 179 were to include language suggesting retroactivity, it would still need to pass the second part of the test, which examines whether the statute is substantive or remedial. The Ohio Constitution prohibits retroactive laws that affect substantive rights. State v. Palmer. Laws affecting procedure are typically considered remedial, while those affecting rights are substantive. Given that Bill 179 pertains to vicarious liability in tort actions, it most likely affects substantive rights, making its retroactive application unconstitutional.
In summary, Bill 179 simplifies the process for plaintiffs to pursue claims against secondarily liable parties by not requiring the inclusion of the primarily liable party in the lawsuit, except in cases involving specific professional malpractice. The existing provisions under R.C. §2305.15 tolling of limitation during a defendant’s absence, concealment or imprisonment and the “termination rule” in Frysinger continue to apply as described above. Bill 179 further clarifies that any tolling of the limitations period during the defendant’s absence or concealment does not apply to statutes of repose. Finally, the enactment of Bill 179 will not affect any claims that occurred prior to its enactment, as it does not explicitly state that it is to be applied retroactively and it effects a substantive right.
Please contact your Weston Hurd attorney or the authors of this update if you have any questions about this topic.
