lougoblawg

The United States Citizenship and Naturalization Service projects an improvement in processing times for naturalization cases - a whopping 3-month improvement (13-15 months of processing time from the current 16-18 months).

Jokes aside, the surge in naturalization applications and such a backlog in processing them is thanks to a hike in filing fees last summer. USCIS saw 460,000 applications for the month of July alone - which were undoubtedly filed to beat the fee increase. Just as a comparison, prior to this surge, typical processing time was about 6 months.

Perhaps next year, we’ll be back to normal. For those of you whose applications are currently pending, sit tight.
Here is a link to the press release for what it’s worth.

In a decision published on February 21, 2008, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld a statute of repose on product liability claims. According to the statute of repose, R.C. 2305.10,"no cause of action based on a product liability claim shall accrue against the manufacturer or supplier of a product later than ten years from the date that the product was delivered to its first purchaser.” The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, with a modification of its applicability. Instead of the statute being applicable to claims filed on or after April 7, 2005, the court applied it to claims that accrued on or after April 7, 2005, the effective date of the statute. This decision effectively eliminates cases involving old equipment that does not pass scrutiny under the current jury’s view of technology and scientific advances. I believe it is a fair result for old manufacturing companies. Instead of focusing on old equipment, we should focus our efforts on future technological advancements, research and improved product safety.

Click here for the full opinion.

Click here to the Statute of Repose.

Effective January 1, 2008, Ohio’s minimum wages increase to $7.00 per hour for non-tipped employees and $3.50 per hour for tipped employees. These wage rates apply to employers who gross $255,000 in annual sales. Those who gross less than $255,000 in annual sales must follow federal minimum wage laws. For mor information, see the Department of Commerce Press Release.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Service advises of long delays in processing applications filed this summer. It predicts 16 to 18 months of processing time for naturalization applications filed in June of 2007. It used to take about 6 months. For those whose applications are currently pending, sit tight. USCIS has committed to hiring 1,500 new employees to process the nearly-doubled amount of applications filed. This increase in applications is most likely attributable to applicants trying to beat a hike in filing fees that occurred on July 31, 2007. If you need to check the status of your application, click here.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service reminds all employers that the deadline for employers to transition to new I-9 forms is December 26, 2007. Information about the new I-9 forms can be found in my earlier post of 11/21/2007. Click here for the fact sheet and FAQ’s for the new I-9 form.

The deadline for filing 2009 diversity visa lottery applications is at noon, December 2, 2007. This means that all eligible applicants must apply on-line by this deadline in order to be eligible to participate in this visa lottery. The “winners” receive permanent residence in the United States. This is a very unique opportunity, and eligible applicants should take advantage of this program.

Citizens of Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietman ARE NOT ELIGIBLE for a diversity visa.

To get more information and apply on-line, go to http://www.dvlottery.state.gov.

For more information see the Department of State Media release and GOOD LUCK!

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a new I-9 (employment eligibility verification) form. It is important that all employers comply with federal law governing work authorization, properly fill out the form, and properly document their employees’ eligibility to work in the United States. Failure to do so can lead to hefty fines and legal consequences.
Click here for the new I-9 form.
Click here for a Fact Sheet on employment eligibility.
Click here for the revised Handbook on employment eligibility.

The US Department of Labor has released a new publication, Labor Standards Information for New and Small Businesses. It is a useful resource for new and small businesses for compliance with the Wage & Hour laws.

It is important to remember that Ohio has its own minimum wage provisions. Business that have gross annual sales of $250,000 or more must pay the State minimum wages. The Ohio minimum wage laws are found in the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code. For more information, visit my minimum wage laws website.

OSHA implemented a new rule requiring employers to provide PPE (personal protective equipment) at no cost to their employees. Although the rule before this one required the employer to provide PPE, some provisions did not specify that all PPE is to be provided at no cost to the employee. The new rule covers all PPE such as gloves, hard-hats, safety helmets, face shields, etc. There are still some exceptions for ordinary clothing, weater-related wear, prescription eye wear and safety-toed footwear. Click here for the full text of the rule.

In a recently published decision, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals ruled that an employee who refused to ship a non-conforming part to a customer and who is fired for this reason can sue under Ohio law for wrongful discharge. See Zajc v. Hycomp, 2007-Ohio-2637.

In this case, an employee was working as a “Designated Supplier Quality Representative.” Part of his job was to act as a customer’s agent and make sure that the parts shipped to the customer conform to specifications. In early May, he was inspecting a part for a borehole (a feature that lights and magnifies the view of an aircraft engine). He was not satisfied with this part, but his supervisor told him to ship the part anyway because the customer needed it. After the plaintiff refused to ship the part, the supervisor told him to clean out his desk.

The employee filed a lawsuit, claiming that he was terminated in violation of a clear public policy. Under Ohio law, employment is generally at-will, unless you have a written contract or are a member of a union. However, employees can sue if they have been discharged in violation of law (such as anti-discrimination laws) or in violation of a clear public policy. As an example, an employee who is terminated for filing a lawsuit against his employer can sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Of course, a clear public policy must exist to make the termination unlawful. In this case, the employee argued that the public policy was that the parts internal to jet aircraft engines created a safety concern for the public. Therefore, it is against public policy to terminate employees who insist that the parts be made safely because it would discourage employees from complying with part specifications and create a danger to the public. The trial court did not agree with the plaintiff and dismissed the case before it got to the jury. However, the court of appeals disagreed and reversed the trial court. This case will therefore proceed to a jury trial, and a jury will determine whether the employer is liable.

For us “legal geeks” out there, the court’s analysis is particularly interesting. Typically, a clear public policy must come from a statute or another body of law. In this case, the plaintiff relied on UCC and the Ohio Product Liability Statute as the source of the public policy. The trial court did not find that these statutes satisfied the “clarity” element. Further, the trial court found that the jeopardy element was not met because persons injured by a defective product can file a lawsuit. The appellate court noted that public policy can be derived from a statute, the Constitution of Ohio and the United States, administrative rules and regulations, and the common law. The Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiff established the clear public policy element because 1) the UCC allows the buyer to reject a non-conforming part, and 2) the OPLA creates strict liability for defective products. The Court went on to cite federal regulations that provide for a production-inspection system for aircraft parts.

More importantly, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the employer that the source of the public policy must prohibit termination of an employee. Rather, the Court found that the source itself does not need to prohibit the discharge. Employees who are charged with compliance with federal law should not be discharged for refusing to ship parts that do not meet such requirements.