We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 93

Non-competition agreements: Ensuring enforceability
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • July 21 2017

A non-competition agreement raises state-law public policy concerns. As a result, states often restrict the scope of non-competition agreements


Ohio Supreme Court Says Dismissal of a Grievance May Not Be the Last Word
  • Kegler Brown Hill + Ritter
  • USA
  • October 24 2016

In a recent disciplinary case, the Supreme Court of Ohio was faced with deciding the finality of a dismissal of a grievance by a certified grievance


Ohio Supreme Court reverses itself, holding that noncompete agreements do transfer to the successor corporation after a corporate merger
  • Epstein Becker Green
  • USA
  • October 18 2012

Earlier this year, we wrote about the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel et al., (“Acordia I”), in which the Court held that when a company that was the original party to a noncompete agreement merges in to another company, unless the noncompete agreement contained a “successors and assigns” clause, the merger was a termination of employment which triggered the running of the restrictive period in the noncompete.


Ohio Supreme Court holds that a merger triggers the running of a noncompete clock
  • Epstein Becker Green
  • USA
  • May 30 2012

The Ohio Supreme Court recently held that when a company that was the original party to a noncompete agreement merges in to another company, unless the noncompete agreement contained a “successors and assigns” clause, the merger is a termination of employment which triggers the running of the restrictive period in the noncompete.


Supreme Court of Ohio sets guidelines for wrongful discharge based on a violation of public policy
  • Roetzel & Andress
  • USA
  • September 16 2011

Since 1994, Ohio law has recognized a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of a public policy.


Employee who was fired for failing to obtain a required professional license cannot get unemployment benefits
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2011

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held today that a fired employee was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits when she was fired for failing to obtain a professional license that was required as a condition of hiring.


Injured workers protected from retaliatory action prior to filing a workers’ compensation claim
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2011

The anti-retaliation provision of the Ohio workers’ compensation statute, R.C. 4123.90, does not extend protection to an employee who is terminated before he or she files, institutes or pursues a workers’ compensation claim.


Ohio Supreme Court recognizes common law public policy claim for wrongful discharge in retaliation for reporting workplace injury
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • USA
  • June 10 2011

On June 9, 2011, in Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., the Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 4123.90, the workers’ compensation retaliation statute, expresses a clear public policy “prohibiting retaliatory employment action against injured employees, including injured employees who have not filed, instituted or pursued a workers’ compensation claim.”


Supreme Court of Ohio recognizes wrongful discharge claim for employee that reports a workplace injury
  • Roetzel & Andress
  • USA
  • June 9 2011

On June 9, 2011, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that Ohio Rev. Code 4123.90 expresses a clear public policy against the retaliatory firing of an employee who suffers a workplace injury but has yet to file a workers’ compensation claim.


Ohio supreme court to address assignability of noncompetes during mergers and acquisitions
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • April 21 2011

Yesterday the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal that addresses the extent to which a corporate merger may impact the surviving company's ability to enforce restrictive covenants that its predecessor companies entered into with their employees.