In a commercial lease than can run 15 to 25 pages (single spaced) or more, there can be trips and traps for both landlord and tenant.  Thus, both should carefully consider not just the major financial and business terms, but even “throw away” or boilerplate provisions.  In the alternative, each party should carefully perform his due diligence before undertaking lease obligations.

We recently represented a tenant in a commercial lease in which the lease — as is common in landlord-written leases — obligated the tenant to “comply with all laws throughout the term of the lease.”

In this instance, our client was a medical user.  The zoning jurisdiction of the property differentiated minimum parking requirements for medical office uses versus general office uses.  The consequence of that differentiation for our medical office client was that the space simply would not comply with zoning requirements for our client’s use.

In other words, he could not “comply with all laws.”

The problem was complicated and compounded because (a) the landlord applied for the building permit on which he represented to the zoning authority that the premises would be “general office” uses and (b) $75,000 in buildout work had been completed before the non-compliance was discovered.  Further, the landlord originally solicited tenant to occupy the premises and at least implicitly represented that it would comply with zoning requirements for the tenant’s use.

The zoning authority simply would not permit the occupancy contemplated by the lease.

In this circumstance, is the tenant in breach and therefore responsible for the tenant build-out costs and rent payments until the premises can be re-rented?  Is the landlord in breach of the lease and responsible for the damages the tenant suffered because he could not timely occupy the premises?

It candidly was vague.  There was no clear answer, and the problem was significant for the client and the landlord.  Ultimately, the parties agreed upon a fair settlement of the issues.

But the situation highlighted the critical importance of each and every provision of the lease, even “throw away” provisions.

The Ohio Department of Taxation has announced the 2018 Tax Amnesty Program under which all penalties and half of accrued interest charges will be waived on certain qualified delinquent taxes for both individuals and businesses.

Important program components:

  • You may qualify if you have certain unpaid taxes that were due as of May 1, 2017, and have not been contacted by the Department of Taxation.
  • The filing period is from January 1, 2018 to February 15, 2018.
  • To apply, you must (i) file a tax amnesty application, (ii) file your delinquent tax returns, (iii) pay all delinquent taxes and interest.
  • The amnesty program applies to (i) state individual income tax, (ii) school district individual income tax, (iii) employer withholding state income tax, (iv) employer withholding of school district income tax, (v) sales tax, (vi) use tax, (vii) commercial activity tax, (viii) cigarette and alcohol taxes, and (viii) certain other taxes.

You may read more about the program here.

Contact Isaac Heintz at (513) 943-6654 for information on how you Finney Law Firm can help you participate in this program.

Until the Las Vegas shooting, we believe this was the largest domestic shooting incident in 2017, at the Club Cameo nightclub on Kellogg Avenue in Cincinnati.

Jennifer Edwards Baker of Fox19.com and the Enquirer.Com has the story today on our new suit on behalf of the estate of one of the two deceased in the shooting, O’Bryan Spikes: New Cameo negligence suit to be filed against Club Manager, police, City

We will post the Complaint when it is filed.

For more information, call Brad Gibson at 513-943-6661.

Some of you may have seen the “viral” image of a woman named Julie Briskman, who was recently photographed raising her middle finger to a presidential motorcade that passed her while she was bicycling in Virginia. Ms. Briskman was subsequently fired from her job with Akima, LLC, a private contractor that does business with the federal government.
 
Ms. Briskman had made the photograph in question her “profile picture” on her Facebook page. Her employer saw the photograph, and fired her for allegedly violating the company’s social media policy. That policy apparently prohibited employees from posting “lewd or obscene” content on social media sites.
 
So, you might say, what about the First Amendment? What about freedom of speech? Didn’t Ms. Briskman have the right to express her opinion of the President? How can she be fired for that?
 
The civil liberties that are guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights protect us from adverse action by the government, but not by private employers. Since Akima is a private company, Ms. Briskman was not protected from termination for expressing her political opinions. If she had worked for a government agency, the answer might well have been different.
 
Another interesting wrinkle about the story, though, is that another employee of Akima who posted an obscene message on a social media site was not fired by the Company. If Ms. Briskman was treated differently than the other employee because of her gender, race, or age, she might still have grounds for legal action.
 
This story presents a timely reminder to employers to review and update their employee handbooks, and to make sure that they have appropriate social media policies in place. Among other things, a good social media policy will prohibit employees from causing harm to their employer in places like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, while also respecting the rights of employees to their privacy and opinions. Employees must also be permitted to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with one another, without reprisal from their employers.
 
By the way, if you are feeling sorry for Ms. Briskman, you should know that she apparently received thousands of job offers from all across the country after the public found out what happened to her. So she apparently is going to be okay.
 
If you are an employer or employee who might need assistance navigating these issues, it would be wise to reach out to competent employment counsel. These matters present many potential traps for the unwary!

 

Scott Pullins, founder of the Ohio Taxpayers Association, wrote a blog entry on Third Rail Politics highlighting our public interest practice entitled “You Can Fight Back When Officials Use Taxpayer Dollars for Politics” last week.  You may read that entry here.

Our firm has helped to blaze a trail of causes of action demanding equal access to public forums (such as schoolyards and lobbies of city buildings), and claiming violations of taxpayer statutes, when government officials misuse tax dollars for campaign purposes, which is not permitted.

We are pleased this work has been recognized.

The social media movement represented by #MeToo began about ten years ago.  Recently, however, in response to revelations about sexual assault and harassment by movie producer Harvey Weinstein, its use has skyrocketed. Literally millions of women (and some men) all over the world – and in every industry – have used the hashtag in recent weeks to come forward about their experiences of being sexually victimized. For many, many women, this social media movement has provided an outlet that didn’t previously exist to express their anger and outrage over being targeted for abuse or harassment because of their gender.

The #MeToo movement is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the workplace, where many of us spend close to half our waking hours. Sexual harassment and abuse have been historically under-reported, as women have often been reluctant or afraid to come forward. #MeToo is changing that, at least on social media. It is likely that more victims will now also feel emboldened to tell their stories of abuse to their HR departments – and to lawyers, judges, and juries.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal, as it is a form of sex discrimination. While not every inappropriate comment to an employee will – by itself – create a hostile work environment, when the comments or other behaviors become “severe or pervasive,” the conduct is illegal, and the employee can recover various forms of damages for the harm it causes – both economically and emotionally.

Employers also need to be mindful of the #MeToo movement. They will see more reports of sexual harassment made to their HR personnel, and they must be ready to respond appropriately. That means having the right employment policies and procedures in place, and doing thorough and fair investigations of any harassment complaints. It also means training their employees in how to recognize, prevent, and stop sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is about power. And high ranking executives are very powerful people in their companies. One of the reasons people like Harvey Weinstein have gotten away with so much for so long is because they hold so much power, and victims have been afraid to challenge that power. Thanks in part to #MeToo, that appears to be changing.

We are local counsel in the case of the NorCal Tea Party v. IRS. we announced this morning that the case has settled with an admission from the U.S. Attorney General that what occurred was a “gross abuse of power.”

Read the coverage here:

Washington Post: Justice Department agrees to settle lawsuits over IRS scrutiny of tea party groups

Wall Street Journal: Administration Agrees to Settle Tea-Party Suits Against IRS

New York Times: Justice Department Settles With Conservative Groups Over IRS Scrutiny

Public Broadcasting Service:  Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment The Trump administration has settled lawsuits with tea party groups that received extra, often burdensome scrutiny when applying for tax-exemp… pbs.org       

 CBS News: DOJ announces settlement with Tea Party groups

Fox NewsTrump DOJ settles lawsuits over Tea Party targeting by Obama IRS

USA Today: Justice Department settles IRS lawsuits from 400 conservative groups claiming discrimination

New York Daily News: IRS settles Tea Party groups’ suits over delayed nonprofit status

Chicago Tribune: Justice Department agrees to settle lawsuits over IRS scrutiny of tea party groups

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Tea Party groups settle lawsuit against IRS; agency apologizes for discrimination during Obama’s

San Francisco Chronicle: Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment

Yahoo Finance: Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment

Minneapolis Star: Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment; will get apology

Townhall: DOJ Starts to Make Amends for Tea Party Scandal

Washington Times: Feds to pay ‘generous’ settlement to tea party groups for targeting

Breitbart News: DOJ Settles with Tea Party Groups on Lois Lerner IRS Scandal

Cincinnati Enquirer: IRS settles tea party cases for millions and an apology

We are pleased to bring you this morning news that the Internal Revenue Service has settled the case of NorCal Tea Party v. IRS filed in the United States District Coiurt for the Southern District of Ohio.  We have served as local counsel in “what may be the only nationwide class ever formed for a claim of this type.”

United States District Court Judge Susan Dlott originally handled the case and certified it as a class action.  It most recently has been handled by Judge Michael Barrett.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions today weighed in personally on the settlement and the conduct of the IRS:

“There is no excuse for this conduct.  Hundreds of organizations were affected by these actions, and they deserve an apology from the IRS. We hope that today’s settlement makes clear that this abuse of power will not be tolerated.”

The Washington Post has the story here.

The statement by our lead counsel, Eddie Greim of Garrett Graves in Kansas City is below:

The United States Reaches Agreement with a Nationwide Class of Over 400 Targeted Groups in NorCal v United States, Vindicating Plaintiffs’ Claims in a Generous Financial Settlement

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, October 26, 2017

The Plaintiffs in NorCal v. United States are pleased to announce that late yesterday, the United States entered into a generous financial settlement to pay the claims of each of over 400 groups in the Plaintiff Class who were targeted by the IRS for their political beliefs. It is a great day for the First Amendment and the promise of fair and impartial government. But this day was too long in coming.

Five groups filed this case, the first claim against the IRS for its targeting of conservative groups, and the only nationwide class action, in May 2013. These five, NorCal Tea Party Patriots, South Dakota Citizens for Liberty, Americans Against Oppressive Laws, San Angelo Tea Party, and the Texas Patriots Tea Party, sacrificed hundreds of hours of time. The lawsuit stretched over four years and was sustained by funding from Citizens for Self-Governance, a non-profit that aids citizen groups. CSG was itself targeted by the IRS during the discovery process, but refused to back down.

In 2015, Judge Susan Dlott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio certified what may be the only nationwide class ever formed for a claim of this type. In 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals soundly rejected the IRS’s attempt to use taxpayer protection laws to withhold evidence of its own wrongdoing in the case. In 2016, District Judge Michael Barrett entered a preliminary injunction against the IRS, finding a strong showing of a likelihood of success on Texas Patriots Tea Party’s First Amendment claim. In 2017, Texas Patriots became one of the last groups to have its exempt status recognized. Also in 2017, the Plaintiffs took the first and only deposition of Lois Lerner, which remains under seal in a manner still being litigated by Plaintiffs notwithstanding the proposed settlement. Under federal court rules, District Judge Barrett must still approve the class settlement on the motion of the parties.

By the fall of 2017, dozens of IRS officials had testified under oath, and the case was being prepared for trial. As part of this process, Attorney General Sessions’ Department of Justice carefully reviewed the facts. The generosity of its proposed settlement belies recent, uninformed claims that IRS officials merely mismanaged the files of conservative groups, or subjected liberal groups to similar treatment. To the contrary, Plaintiffs developed evidence showing that IRS managers knew that groups’ views, not their activities, were being used to target them for heightened scrutiny. Even after they gained this knowledge, officials like Lois Lerner failed to release the targeted groups, ordering up more scrutiny and delay even while betraying worry that the “Tea Party matter” was “very dangerous.” This was far more than the “lack of adequate management” the IRS or TIGTA is publicly willing to acknowledge.

Attorney General Sessions rightly calls this an “abuse of power.” As he says, the Plaintiffs deserve an apology from the IRS. But not even a court can force the IRS to apologize or admit to its wrongdoing. Those remedies are unknown to the law. A true reckoning is finally up to the agency itself. Until the IRS itself steps forward to admit what really happened, we cannot have faith that the same abuse won’t be repeated again. It is easy for the IRS to abuse its toolbox of policies and procedures that seem neutral on their face, just like the superficially innocent process of “centralization” that Lois Lerner and others used as an excuse to abuse the Plaintiffs. So truly, it is not just Plaintiffs who need an apology. Every taxpayer and group, whether or not targeted in this particular scheme, has a right to demand a truthful apology based on the facts and a real reckoning. Before Commissioner Koskinen leaves office, the Plaintiffs call on him to do the right thing.

For questions, please contact counsel Eddie Greim at 816-256-4144.

 

Written By: Todd V. McMurtry

I recently spoke at the Kentucky Bar Association’s Kentucky Law Update on behalf of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section. One of the topics I addressed related to whether mediators should be credentialed. In general, the concept of requiring a mediator to be credentialed is similar to a lawyer being licensed to practice law or a doctor being licensed to practice medicine. Today, mediators are not credentialed. They may be trained, but they are not required to pass a test.

As I discussed at the seminar, two major institutions recently have considered the issue of credentialing. They are the ABA Task Force on Mediator Credentialing and the International Mediation Institute. The ABA Task Force issued its final report on credentialing to which the International Mediation Institute responded. Both organizations concluded that requiring mediators to become credentialed would not necessarily improve the quality of mediations. Their findings focused on the idea that parties choose mediators whom they know get results. These two bodies did not want to artificially limit the available mediators by requiring them to pass a test. In essence, they concluded that there may be an advantage to provide minimum qualifications through credentialing, but a mediator’s ability to be effective is governed as much by that person’s personality and knowledge of the law as by their training.

I had the opportunity to offer my opinion to the attorneys gathered for the seminar. I agreed with the ABA Task Force’s opinion. But, I did endorse the idea that mediators are well served to attend formal mediation training. I attended the Harvard Mediation Institute, and found it to be extremely helpful. The advantage of obtaining an education in mediation, as opposed to simply doing what works, is that formal instruction does provide additional tools that one may not know. (There is more than one way to obtain a successful result in mediation). As well, to attend a program like Harvard’s exposes the participant to many other successful mediators and mediation strategies.

So, while I do not think that mediators should have to obtain credentials to serve as a mediator, I do think it is a good idea to make the effort to undergo the more formal training provided by schools like Harvard and Pepperdine, both of which are recognized as the best programs in the United States.

Todd V. McMurtry is a Member at Hemmer DeFrank Wessels, PLLC.  He is a commercial trial attorney and Harvard trained mediator.  Todd has been married to his wife, Maria C. Garriga, for 32 years.  They have three adult children.

 


Written By: Janie Ratliff-Sweeney

True Story:  I recently met with a client who had a disgruntled ex-employee file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (the enforcement arm of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules) alleging violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rules by the client.  The client had experienced an inadvertent disclosure of protected health information (PHI) more than a year prior to the ex-employee’s filing of the OCR complaint.  The specific facts about the inadvertent disclosure of the PHI are not particularly unusual or sexy – an email containing the PHI of several patients was sent in error to the wrong email address.  These types of inadvertent disclosures are bound to happen.  Once the client learned of the email incident, it took what it considered appropriate action at the time and then filed away the incident to gather dust.  Unfortunately, the ex-employee too had filed away the incident – only to blow off the dust and resurrect it in a complaint filed with the OCR.  According to the OCR inquiry letter received by the client, the ex-employee alleged the client had not acted in compliance with HIPAA in its response to the email incident.  The OCR inquiry letter also contained the usual “data request” portion which required the client to submit to the OCR copies of its written policies and procedures related to safeguarding PHI, breaches, notifications of breaches, and the like.  So, the client not only faced defending its actions arising out of an incident from more than a year prior; the client had to also provide copies of its written policies and procedures.  After filing its response to the OCR, the client now sits and waits for its actions and documents to be judged by the OCR.  If the OCR judges the actions and/or documents of the client are not adequate or violated HIPAA, on to the next step:  the levying of fines.  But, regardless as to whether the client’s actions were HIPAA compliant, the client expended valuable resources (time and money) in drafting a response to the OCR and in gathering its documents.

Fines: “Fines schmines!” you say.  “Cost of doing business!” you say.  Right?  Wrong.

Have you paid attention to the fines the OCR has doled out recently?  Ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars.  During March of 2016, the OCR levied more than $5 million dollars in one week!  Levied for things ranging from lost laptops to IT system hacks.  Depending on the facts and circumstances of the violation, fines can climb upwards of nearly $56,000 per violation.  Do you want to be the physician or practice/facility administrator trying to split hairs with the OCR as to what constitutes “one” violation when an email is inadvertently sent to the wrong addressee and the email contains the PHI of 100 patients?  If that’s “one” violation (and depending on the facts and circumstances), that may be a check for $56,000.  Phew!  If it’s 100 violations… well… you do the math.

That check to the OCR contains hard earned dollars that will not otherwise be available for distribution to the owners or employees of your practice or facility, or to pay any of your practice’s or facility’s anticipated expenses.  Of course, that amount does not include the cost of hiring a health care attorney conversant in the HIPAA Privacy Rules.  Such expertise is vital in any dealings with the OCR or when viewing your practice’s or facility’s compliance with HIPAA.

Let’s Test your HIPAA IQ – Query me the following:  Would you know what steps are required to be taken upon the discovery of an inadvertent disclosure of PHI?  Do you know what is involved with a HIPAA-complaint “risk assessment”?  Do you know whether notices must be sent to patients following an inadvertent disclosure of PHI?  If so, do you know what the requirements are as to the form and substance of such notices?  Do you know the time frame in which a practice must investigate and take action following its knowledge of an inadvertent disclosure of PHI?  When was the last time your employees received HIPAA initial training or re-fresher training?

If your answer to any of the above is “no” or “I don’t know”, you are subjecting your practice or facility to large fines – sticking your head in the sand will not solve the problem.  Taking on the “it won’t happen to me” attitude will also not solve the problem.  The reality is that OCR is ramping up enforcement actions and it is levying fines at will.

STUFF Happens – Humans are Human:  Human error.  It is rampant.  No matter how much training you conduct and no matter how many policies and procedures you have in place – stuff happens.  People make mistakes.

As such, it is prudent to understand what you need to do when a staff member in your practice or facility makes a mistake and sends that email to the wrong person.  It is prudent to have in place appropriate safeguards to prevent human error – but the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to wave a wand and suddenly make every single employee perfect and without error.

Stuff happens.

Be prepared.

Educate yourself.

Know what you are obligated to do when the PHI is inadvertently disclosed.  Know whether a breach has occurred.  Know what you have to do if a breach has occurred.  Know what a patient notification letter is required to contain.  Know the time frame within which a patient notice must be sent.  Know whether you have to notify the OCR immediately or at the end of the year.  Know whether you must notify the media.

As the FRAM man once said – “you can pay me now or pay me later”.  When it comes to HIPAA compliance, a little prevention on the front end will certainly minimize or eliminate fines on the back end.

Janie M. Ratliff-Sweeney is a health care lawyer.  You can reach Ms. Ratliff-Sweeney at (859) 344-1188 or [email protected].