On September 24, 2019, the Ohio Supreme Court announced the General Assembly has broad authority to regulate public-works contracts that subject Ohio’s workers to residency preferences or restrictions. In The City of Cleveland v. The State of Ohio, the Court concluded the General Assembly properly enacted R.C. 9.75, which prohibits municipalities and other political subdivisions from requiring a contractor on a public-improvement project to employ a certain number or percentage of local residents. The statute also prohibits municipalities and other political subdivisions from providing a bid award bonus or preference to contractors as an incentive to employ a certain number or percentage of its own residents.

The decision stemmed from the City of Cleveland’s local ordinance requiring “public-construction contracts in an amount of $100,000.00 or more to include a provision mandating that city residents perform 20 percent of the total construction work hours under the contract.” The purpose of the ordinance was to help alleviate unemployment and poverty in Cleveland and included penalties for a contractor’s failure to comply with the contractual provision. In 2016, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 9.75, which was in direct conflict with the city’s ordinance. The city of Cleveland sought an injunctive relief and a judgment declaring R.C. 9.75 to be unconstitutional because it conflicted with the Home Rule Amendment, Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, which reserves all powers of local self-government to municipalities that are not in conflict with general laws. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court permanently enjoining enforcement of R.C. 9.75, finding the statute was not within the General Assembly’s authority under Article II, Section 34 of the Ohio Constitution, and violated the Home Rule Amendment.

Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court Strikes Down Local Ordinance Imposing Residency Requirements of Ohio’s Workers on Public-Construction Contracts

The EEOC’s September 30th deadline for all covered employers to submit pay data for 2017 and 2018 wage data is right around the corner. While some employers may have implemented data collection tools intended to meet this requirement when a revised EEO-1 report was released in October 2016, others delayed implementation after use of the revised EEO-1 report was halted and litigation ensued over the revised EEO-1 report. A court order issued earlier this year reinstituted the filing requirement for all covered employers.

Covered employers are those private employers who had 100 or more employees in a self-selected “snapshot period” between October 1st and December 31st of 2017 and who had 100 or more employees in a self-selected “snapshot period” between October 1st and December 31st of 2018. The self-selected “snapshot period” can be different periods for each year and can also be a different period than what was selected for the “snapshot period” for the EEO-1 Component 1 report (employee counts by race and ethnicity groups by gender and job category). Notably, federal contractors and subcontractors with 50 to 99 employees who are required to file annually EEO-1 Component 1 data are not required to file the Component 2 wage data.

Continue Reading September 30th Wage Reporting Deadline Fast Approaching

Hahn Loeser attorney Matt Grashoff and Brian Hoagland of Oswald Companies join Tim Linville and Glen Shumate of the Construction Employers Association on this episode of the Construction Employers Podcast to discuss the impact of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in the Charles Construction case on construction insurance.

Click here to listen and subscribe to the podcast.

On July 17, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio announced a major victory for the Ohio construction industry in the ongoing battle over whether Ohio’s construction statute of repose, R.C. 2305.131, bars claims for breach of contract as well as tort claims. In New Riegel Local School District v. Buehrer Group Architecture & Engineering, Inc., et al., the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the construction statute of repose does apply to breach-of-contract claims as well as tort claims.

Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court Rules that Statute of Repose Applies to Contract Claims

Hahn Loeser’s Construction Team, led by Rob Remington, Jeff Brauer and Christina Hassel, obtained a resounding victory on behalf of its client, Mark Schaffer Excavating (MSE) in a bid dispute with the City of Lorain. Sherry Rollo, Sarah Lewis and Nevenka Whitworth also assisted with the case.

The City of Lorain engaged contractors to bid on a massive ecological restoration project involving the removal or burial of slag that sits between steel mills and the Black River in Lorain. MSE entered into a bid dispute with the City, arguing that it abused its discretion and arbitrarily rejected MSE’s low bid in favor of one of its competitors.

Continue Reading HLP Construction Team Secures Mandatory Injunction Against City of Lorain in Bid Dispute

The most common types of “differing and changed conditions” in construction contracts deal with subsurface issues such as inadequate support, unanticipated groundwater, or unanticipated natural or artificial subsurface obstructions. But what happens when an unusual differing and changed condition, such as an endangered species, or even an unexpected burial ground, impacts your project? Continue Reading What to Do When Your Employees Are Dive Bombed By Falcons

Unit pricing and other confidential information contained within your bid documents may be recognized as a trade secret under Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secret Act and similar federal laws. What does that mean? In simple terms, it means that even on a public project subject to applicable public records laws, contractors can prevent disclosure of their trade secrets to the world, including their competitors.

Continue Reading Contractors – Protect Your Confidential Information from Wrongful Disclosure

Hahn Loeser’s Construction Team is a proud leader in a major victory for Ohio contractors and their sureties. The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio issued a recent decision confirming that Ohio’s construction statute of repose, R.C. 2305.131, applies to breach of contract claims. It also confirmed that sureties are entitled to rely on the statute of repose as a defense to claims under the bond.

Continue Reading Ohio Court of Appeals Confirms Applicability of Statute of Repose to Contract Claims and Sureties

Steel and other construction material tariffs necessitate careful evaluation and allocation of project cost and schedule risks. For example, when steel costs increased suddenly based solely on presidential executive orders, the building trades and owners saw drastic increases in costs, shop drawing review times and delivery dates. In many instances, contract documents failed to account for such risks.

Another factor that can significantly increase the price of material, and even the market price for labor, include catastrophic weather events. When bad weather occurs, contractors may no longer be able to obtain the material at originally budgeted pricing, or secure necessary labor forces to perform the work. Labor and material shortages domino into project delays, potential liquidated damages and claims.

Continue Reading Contract Risk for Escalation Costs