Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Ohio Civil Rights Law Changes Are Prospective, Not Retrospective

In the case of Burch v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co., 2023-Ohio-912, an appellate court held that an employee asserting pregnancy discrimination claims that accrued prior to the April 15, 2021 effective date for revisions to employment discrimination claims brought under R.C. Chapter 4112 did not require that the employee to either exhaust her administrative remedies, file her complaint within the new two-year statute of limitations, or prohibit claims against supervisors as statutes are presumed to be prospective rather than retrospective unless the statute explicitly states otherwise.

In this case, the employee argued that neither the exhaustion of administrative remedy mandate, two-year statute of limitations, nor supervisor liability prohibition apply to her pregnancy discrimination claims as her claims arose prior to April 15, 2021, which was the effective date of these legislative changes. In response, the employer argued that the exhaustion of administrative remedy mandate, two-year statute of limitations, and supervisor liability prohibitions do apply because the employee dismissed the original complaint filed on July 29, 2020, and then refiled the complaint on December 21, 2021, which was after both changes took effect on April 15, 2021. The appellate court agreed with the employee.

In support of its decision in favor of the employee, the appellate court explained that statutes are presumed to be prospective rather than retrospective unless the statute explicitly states otherwise, and nothing R.C. Chapter 4112 states otherwise.

To read this case, click here.

To read H.B. 352, entitled, “Employment Law Uniformity Act,” click here.

To read the Final Analysis for H.B. 352, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.