On April 2, we reported that Judge Matthew Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Department of Labor from enforcing certain provisions of Executive Orders 14173 and 14151, both of which limit or prohibit federal grants or programs relating to “illegal,” “unlawful,”
On March 27, 2025, Judge Matthew Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Department of Labor from enforcing certain provisions of Executive Orders 14173 and 14151, both of which limited or prohibited federal grants or programs relating to “illegal,” “unlawful,” and “immoral”
On March 14, 2025, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s request to stay a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of elements of President Trump’s Executive Order 14173 (signed January 21, 2025) ending DEI programs within federal grant and contract processes, and his similar Executive Order 14151 (signed January
On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173 titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Order”). As was noted in our February 10, 2025, article, the Order amounted to an initial step by the Trump administration to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) as well as diversity, equity, inclusion
Recent actions by the federal government have called into question the use of measures intended to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) on federal construction projects or projects receiving federal funding. On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173 (the “Order”) revoking Executive Order 11246 signed by President Johnson in 1965. The revoked
Warranties provided to project owners are often some of the most-negotiated provisions in a construction contract. What will the warranties cover? How can they be enforced? Perhaps most importantly: how long will they be in force? Arguments regarding one recent construction project in Ohio demonstrate the importance of knowing whether contractual language does, or does
When reviewing a contract, how often have you had the following thoughts: “That provision is so one-sided, there’s no way it will be enforced the way it’s written!” Or “I won’t worry about negotiating that provision; a court would never enforce it as written.”
A recent decision from Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals illustrates
On March 24, the Ohio Department of Transportation released a “Statement Regarding COVID-19 Response” in an attempt to provide guidance for contractors working on ODOT projects. A copy of the Statement is available here. The major takeaway from the Statement is that ODOT confirmed its position that “specific circumstances directly caused by the COVID-19/Coronavirus
The Seventh District Court of Appeals’ decision in Union Local School District v. Grae-Con Construction is another important victory for the Ohio construction industry in the ongoing debate over the proper application of Ohio’s construction statute of repose, R.C. 2305.131. The Seventh District Court of Appeals, applying the Supreme Court of Ohio’s July 2019 decision in New Riegel Local School District v. Buehrer Group Architecture & Engineering, Inc., et al., reaffirmed dismissal of stale breach-of-contract claims under Ohio’s construction statute of repose. The Seventh District rejected three separate arguments advanced by Union Local, which was attempting to overturn the trial court’s rejection of Union Local’s breach of contract claims against contractors and other project participants. The Union Local opinion is yet another example of Ohio courts interpreting and applying the construction statute of repose to prevent prosecution of stale claims many years after project completion.
Union Local’s first argument was that the construction statute of repose did not apply to breach of contract claims. The Union Local appeal had been stayed pending the outcome of New Riegel, so the Seventh District was able to swiftly dispose of Union Local’s argument based on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s July 2019 holding that Ohio’s construction statute of repose bars breach of contract claims as well as tort claims filed more than 10 years after project substantial completion. (Hahn Loeser previously summarized the impact of New Riegel here.)
Continue Reading Ohio Court of Appeals Applies Supreme Court’s New Riegel Decision; Rejects School District’s “Accrual” Argument to Resurrect Claims
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