M.J. Joseph Development, Corp files complaint for Declaratory Judgment against city of Youngstown, denies default and restates commitment to project

/in /by

For Immediate Release
Monday, May 24, 2021
Contact: Atty. Brian Kopp, 330-502-8825

In response to public statements made by city officials regarding the M.J. Joseph Development, Corp (MJJDC) and the Chill Can project, Attorney Brian Kopp today filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of the company.

In the Complaint, MJJDC denies that it has either defaulted or abandoned the project and asks the Court to declare that the city does not have a right to recover grant funds for the alleged default, has no right to title and possession of the company’s property, and does not possess a right to monetary damages under the Enterprise Agreement contract.

“Representatives of the city have repeatedly claimed Youngstown has powers and avenues of recourse that are not explicitly spelled out in the contracts,” Atty. Kopp said. “To counter those statements, we are asking the Court to clarify the rights and obligations of both parties so MJJDC can move forward.”

“Unfortunately, the city’s rhetoric makes it extremely difficult for MJJDC to achieve its stated goal: completing the facility, hiring local residents, starting production, and making Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley a center of the company’s operations,” Atty. Kopp said.

“The future is bright for our company and we are excited about the opportunities that will accompany the end of pandemic-related restrictions,” MJJDC President Mitchell Joseph said.  “We have committed millions of our own dollars to this project and we want and need it to become an integral part of our operations. We acknowledge that there have been delays, but our global business partners continue to work with us, and we hope the city will do the same.”

It was necessary to file the lawsuit to secure my client’s investment and to ensure that this project will pay dividends to the city and MJJDC for years to come,” Atty Kopp concluded. The Complaint for Declaratory Judgment may be viewed here: Joseph Complaint File 5-24-21

For more information, please contact Atty. Brian Kopp at 330-502-8825.

Can employers ‘out’ unvaccinated employees?

/in , , , , /by

Attorney David BetrasRecently one of our Facebook followers messaged us this important and interesting question:

“Can an employer ask workers if they have been vaccinated for COVID-19 and are they allowed to ‘out’ those who have and have not?”

Like most employment issues related to the pandemic, the answer to that straightforward question is complicated, multi-faceted, and evolving. But I am certainly willing to take a shot at responding.

I want to preface the discussion by reminding everyone of two critically important facts: First, employers are generally permitted to require all workers to be vaccinated. Second, workers who refuse may be disciplined and/or fired unless they are protected by a union contract, have a disability or object to getting a shot due to sincerely held religious beliefs.

Employers must offer people who fall into the latter two categories “reasonable accommodations” that will enable them to continue to work.

Now let us consider whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits employers to ask workers if they have been vaccinated. According to guidance issued late last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the answer is yes as long as inquiry does not elicit information about a disability that would trigger the ADA’s requirement that all inquiries be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

Tip for employers: You do not want to do that.

To avoid running afoul of the ADA, employers should do the following when requesting vaccination information:

• Design the request so it is not likely to elicit information about a disability;
• Do not ask why a worker was not vaccinated;
• Warn employees not to provide any medical information when providing proof of vaccination.

Employers also have the right to ask for any number of reasons: to verify compliance with a vaccine mandate; prove that an employee has qualified for a vaccination incentive; to determine if an employee can return to work on-site; to comply with a customer’s demands that a vendor’s workforce has been vaccinated; or to inform the public that workers at a restaurant, store or other type of business that involves interaction with patrons have received their shots.

In fact, I can envision “Guaranteed COVID-19 Free” becoming a popular advertising slogan in the months ahead.

Now that we have a basic understanding of what employers may do, it is time to address what they may not do: They cannot “out” or identify workers who have or have not been vaccinated.

While it is generally legal to ask the question, it may be considered a medical inquiry which would make each employee’s response confidential medical information protected under statutory and common law. The law also obliges employers to protect workers’ personal and health information including their vaccination status.

I urge employers to take all steps necessary to meet that obligation.

As I mentioned at the beginning of the column, COVID-19 employment law is evolving rapidly so businesses and workers should protect themselves by keeping up to date with their rights and obligations.

While the pandemic is, hopefully, coming to an end, it may take years to resolve the legal issues and lawsuits it has spawned. I will do my best to keep my readers informed.

Sunshine Laws enable citizens, media to expose government corruption, mismanagement, and malfeasance

/in , , , /by

Attorney David BetrasOhio’s Open Meetings Act enacted in 1954 and Public Records Act passed in 1963 known collectively as the state’s “Sunshine Laws,” are based on the belief that government belongs to the people. I couldn’t agree more, and, as a member of the Mahoning County Board of Elections a public body subject to those laws, I believe anyone and everyone should have access to our meetings and the documents we produce.

I’m in good company. The Founders including James Madison, one of the primary architects of our Constitution, clearly understood that public trust was critical to the survival of our democracy:

“A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives”

Over the 66 years since their enactment, Ohio courts have repeatedly recognized the importance of open government when asked to arbitrate Sunshine Law disputes. In 1976 Justice William B. Brown writing for a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court in Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Dayton set the standard for record production that has also been applied to cases involving public meetings:

“The rule in Ohio is that public records are the people’s records, and that the officials in whose custody they happen to be are merely trustees for the people; therefore anyone may inspect such records at any time…”

Given the Dayton Newspapers decision and the fact that both laws empower “any person” to enforce their provisions, one could assume that obtaining records or forcing public bodies to actually meet in public would be a simple, straightforward process.

One would, of course, be wrong.

That’s because we’re dealing with government and the legal system which means these critically important acts are wrapped in miles of red tape. For example, the Sunshine Law Manual published by the Attorney General’s office contains 35 pages of exemptions to the open records law that have been enacted by the General Assembly—including the one that exempts the General Assembly itself from the law. In addition, the courts and the AG’s office have issued numerous opinions that shield records and officeholders from public scrutiny. As a result, forcing government officials to operate in the open can be an arduous, time-consuming endeavor.

But it’s an endeavor that is well worth the effort. In case after case, citizens and the media have used the Sunshine Laws to expose government corruption, mismanagement, and malfeasance and to ensure that bad actors are held accountable for their misdeeds. Ohio is a better state, our democracy is stronger because a concerned resident or inquisitive reporter exercised their right to examine what our elected leaders are doing and how they are doing it.

Because we believe transparency and accountability are essential to the efficient operation of government, you can access a readable/downloadable version of the Sunshine Law Manual here: 2020-Sunshine-Manual_WEB  It’s an A to Z guide that will enable “any person” in our community to utilize the Open Records and Public Meetings acts.

Take a look and then let the sunshine in…

Ohio Department of Health Stay at Home Order

/in /by

Dr. Amy Acton, the Director of the Ohio Department of Health issued a comprehensive “Stay at Home” order on Sunday, March 22. Beginning March 25, Betras, Kopp & Harshman will conduct free Covid-19 legal clinics every Wednesday via Facebook Live for the duration of the crisis. You can ask questions by calling 330-746-848 or 800-487-2889, by emailing dbetras@tb5.ddf.myftpupload.com, or by DMing us via our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/BetrasKoppandHarshman

As a public service we are posting the ODH order by clicking on this link: DirectorsOrderStayAtHome

As a reminder, we are considered an essential business under the order so our offices are open. We have established new protocols for in-person client meetings. We will observe social distancing protocols at all times and the number of visitors who may be present in the office will be limited to ten or less.  We ask any client who has a previously scheduled appointment or may have a hearing or trial pending to confirm the day and time by calling 330-746-8484 or 800-487-2889.

As an alternative to in-person meeting the firm’s attorneys and staff are prepared to conduct initial consultations, meetings, and conferences via telephone, Facetime, and/or Skype. This situation is not going to prevent us from aggressively representing our clients. That is why we are prepared to take extraordinary measures to protect our clients during these extraordinary times.

David Betras, Christopher Knopik, Douglas Titus, Jr. named Ohio, Florida Super Lawyers for 2020

/in /by

We are pleased to announce that three members of our firm: BKH Managing Partner David Betras, Chris Knopik, Managing Attorney of BKH Florida, and Doug Titus, a member of our Complex Litigation Team, are among the five percent of attorneys in Ohio and Florida named to the “Super Lawyer” list for 2020. This prestigious designation is reserved for attorneys who excel in their field, contribute to their community, and abide by the highest professional and ethical standards.

Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a patented multi-phase process that combines peer nominations and evaluations with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of professional achievement. Those who score highest then undergo a “blue ribbon” peer review by practice area. Only the highest-rated attorneys make the Super Lawyer list for each state. We are proud that David, Chris, and Doug are among them.

Atty. Betras was recognized as one of Ohio’s best personal injury attorneys. Atty. Knopik was cited for his civil litigation work. Atty. Titus was named one of Florida’s best white-collar criminal defense lawyers.

You may contact our “Super Lawyers” via our national toll-free line, 800-457-2889. Atty. Betras may be reached in our Ohio office at 330-746-8484. Atty. Knopik’s direct line in Tampa is 813-333-9420. Atty. Titus number in Tampa is 813-988-1331.

To learn more about our team check out their bios by clicking on their names: David Betras, Chris Knopik, and Doug Titus.

Super Lawyer selection process emphasizes peer recognition, accomplishment, performance, experience