In the case of Portage County Educators Ass’n v. State Empl. Rels. Bd., 2020-Ohio-7004, an Ohio Appeals Court held that R.C. 4117.12(B) is unconstitutional because it seeks to regulate the content of speech with regard to picketing.
In this case, the association argued that the statute imposed an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech and that the restrictions were not based on a compelling governmental interest or narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The employment board argued that protecting the privacy rights of individuals and preserving labor peace were compelling governmental interests. The Court of Appeals disagreed.
The Court of Appeals echoed the Ohio Supreme Court in noting that residential privacy rights are not a compelling governmental interest. The Court held that the statute is not narrowly tailored and is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to induce and encourage picketing.
To read this case, 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.