William R. Hanna and Benjamin G. Chojnacki

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying what information must be provided when denying an application for cell phone tower siting under the Telecommunications Act.andnbsp;T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia, 574 U.S. ____ (2015).

The City Council of Roswell, Georgia held a public hearing to consider an application to build a cell phone tower on residential property, filed by T-Mobile South. During the hearing, several members of Council voiced concerns about the impacts of the proposed tower on the area. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council passed unanimously a motion to deny the application. Two days later, the City notified T-Mobile that the application was denied, and told T-Mobile that there would be minutes from the hearing. The minutes were published 26 days later. T-Mobile sued, alleging that the denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence in the record. The District Court agreed with T-Mobile, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the City complied with law, because T-Mobile had received a written denial letter and had a transcript of the hearing (for which it had arranged). T-Mobile appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the Telecommunications Act requires a municipality to provide written reasons for denying an application for cell phone tower siting. Although the municipality does not have to include its reasons in the letter notifying the applicant of the denial,andnbsp;T-Mobile Southandnbsp;requires the municipality to make such reasons available in writing “at essentially the same time” the denial is communicated to the applicant. The significance of the requirement for contemporaneous availability of the written reasons for denial is that an entity whose application is denied has 30 days from the date of denial to decide whether to seek judicial review, such that the 26 days between the denial in this case and the availability of the minutes explaining the reasons for the denial put the applicant in a difficult position.

Municipalities considering applications for cell phone tower siting need to review this opinion to ensure they are processing applications in compliance with Supreme Court precedent. If you have questions about the decision, or any other telecommunications issues, please contact one the attorneys in Walter | Haverfield LLP’sandnbsp;Telecommunications and Right-Of-Way Group.

With more women in the workplace, pregnancy-related issues are an ever-growing reality for most employers. Whether a woman is already pregnant or is actively taking steps to become pregnant, she is protected by numerous federal laws, as well as differing state and local laws – all of which are constantly changing.

In 2014 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released new enforcement guidance under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) addressing pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Although these are guidelines only, they carry considerable weight since courts often defer to the EEOC’s interpretation of the law when deciding cases. As a result, it’s important that employers be aware of their new “obligations.”

Among other things, the EEOC guidelines state that employers must offer light duty to pregnant employees if they make light duty available to non-pregnant employees whose ability or inability to work is similar. That means that if employees who have been injured on the job have the right to work light duty, then light-duty work must also be offered to pregnant employees who are unable to perform their jobs for similar reasons. This issue is expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during the summer but, until then, it may be subject to varying interpretation.

The definition of pregnancy-related disability has also been expanded such that almost any condition related to a pregnancy could be considered a disability. Specific examples include: pelvic inflammation (may substantially limit ability to walk); pregnancy-related carpal tunnel syndrome (may affect ability to lift or perform manual tasks); disorders of the uterus or cervix (may necessitate certain physical restrictions to enable full-term pregnancy); pregnancy-related sciatica (may limit musculoskeletal functions); gestational diabetes (may limit endocrine functions); and preeclampsia (may affect cardiovascular/circulatory functions).

The new guidance further extends protection to employees who are still in the planning stages of becoming pregnant, including those who are undergoing fertility treatments or who have announced plans of becoming pregnant.

Like most things in this world, the EEOC’s guidelines are constantly changing. Savvy employers recognize that it is difficult to stay abreast of the most current guidelines without the added assistance from legal counsel who focus on employment issues. Before creating any new policies or enforcing existing policies that relate to a pregnant or would-be pregnant employee, employers should consult with counsel to ensure they are in line with the most current laws, guidelines and court decisions.

To contact Attorney Weisberg, call 216-928-2928 or e-mail pweisberg@walterhav.com.

Amazon warehouse workers will not be compensated for
time standing in security check lines

Should an employee be compensated for time spent on before- or after-work-related activities such as standing in a security line or waiting to punch in? This has been the subject of intense debate throughout the court system for some time.

However, a unanimous Supreme Court decision issued December 9 affecting workers at two Amazon.com warehouses in Nevada may have put to rest questions regarding what work-related activities are classified as “integral and indispensable” to the job function and, therefore, considered compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In overturning a previous decision by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court established that “an act is integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform – and thus compensable under the FLSA – if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.”

In the specific case of the Amazon warehouse employees who must stand in line after their shifts to undergo security screening designed to deter employee theft, it was determined that this task was neither a principal activity nor an integral part of their work assignments and, therefore, did not qualify for compensation under the FLSA. In making this decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that such security screenings are not different than many other after-hours tasks that employees must do, such as walking from the parking lot or waiting to punch in for work.

The ruling has been hailed as a major success for business as it may well have set a new standard for employers not having to pay employees for every activity they require them to do. It effectively sets a precedent that may help employers more effectively defend themselves against certain FLSA work-time claims. Employers, however, need to be mindful of state laws that regulate payment for these types of activities.

Had the Supreme Court decided in favor of the employees in this specific case, it could have set in motion numerous claims that would have required back pay for as many 400,00 workers amounting to more than $100 million.

It is interesting to note that the Amazon case was one of the few examples where the Department of Labor (DOL) even argued in favor of the employer.

While the Supreme Court ruling effectively limits the amount of compensable activities before and after working hours, employers should still consult with their legal counsel regarding fact-specific situations as they arise.

For more information on this or other employment law issues, please contact one of our Employment lawyers.

Ever since Ohio’s Constitution was amended in 2006, Ohio’s minimum wage correlates with the rate of inflation for the twelve months prior to September. The Ohio Department of Commerce has calculated the rate of inflation and has adjusted the Ohio minimum wage for 2015.

Effective January 1, 2015, Ohio’s minimum wage will increase $0.15 from $7.95 per hour toandnbsp;$8.10 per hourandnbsp;forandnbsp;regular hourly employees. The minimum wage forandnbsp;tipped employeesandnbsp;will increase $0.07 from $3.98 per hour toandnbsp;$4.05 per hour.

Ohio’s minimum wage law does not apply to (i) employees at smaller companies whose annual gross receipts are $297,000 or less per year after January 1, 2015 or to (ii) 14 and 15 year olds. The Ohio minimum wage for these employees is $7.25 per hour because the Ohio wage for these employees is tied to the federal minimum wage. Theandnbsp;federal minimum hourly wageandnbsp;is currentlyandnbsp;$7.25.

The new Poster is available byandnbsp;clicking here.

For more information on this or other employment law issues, please contact one of our Employment lawyers.