Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Kulch v. Structural Fibers (3)
- Employment at-will doctrine (2)
- Whistleblowers (2)
- ADA (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
-
- Constitutional implications of employee drug testing (1)
- Disability law (1)
- Employee drug testing (1)
- Employee drug testing through hair analysis (1)
- Employment at-will (1)
- Employment law (1)
- Employment law public policy exception (1)
- Evidentiary implications of employee drug testing (1)
- Hair analysis (1)
- Inc. (1)
- Inc. public policy exception (1)
- Kulch case (1)
- Mental disability (1)
- Ohio Supreme Court (1)
- Ohio Whistleblower’s Statute (1)
- Ohio law (1)
- Ohio wrongful discharge exception (1)
- Privacy implications (1)
- RIAH (1)
- RIAH as evidence of drug use (1)
- Radioimmunoassay of hair (1)
- Recovery (1)
- Remedies (1)
- Wrongful discharge (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Responsibilities Of Employers Toward Mentally Disabled Persons Under The Americans With Disabilities Act, Karin M. Mika, Denise Wimbiscus
Responsibilities Of Employers Toward Mentally Disabled Persons Under The Americans With Disabilities Act, Karin M. Mika, Denise Wimbiscus
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This article discusses the standards of the American with Disabilities Act with respect to accommodating mental illness in the workplace. It argues that the ADA definitions are not precise enough in apprising employers of what their obligations are regarding mentally ill persons in the workplace. It additionally suggests revising the statue and regulations to achieve this goal.
What Kulch Accomplished, What Kulch Left Out , Tim L. Sprague, Sandra J. Kerber
What Kulch Accomplished, What Kulch Left Out , Tim L. Sprague, Sandra J. Kerber
Cleveland State Law Review
The general rule that an at-will employee can be discharged at any time for any or no reason is not the case in Ohio, because it has developed a wrongful discharge exception to the employment at-will doctrine. Under this doctrine, an employer who wrongfully discharges an employee in violation of clear public policy is subject to an action for damages. The Ohio legislature enacted the Whistleblower’s Statute, which allows the terminated whistleblower to maintain a cause of action against his employer. The Ohio Supreme Court has strengthened protection by allowing the terminated employee to bring common law action for wrongful …
Kulch V. Structural Fibers, Inc.: Clarifying The Public Policy Exception , Sandra J. Rosenthal
Kulch V. Structural Fibers, Inc.: Clarifying The Public Policy Exception , Sandra J. Rosenthal
Cleveland State Law Review
The Kulch case is significant because of its far-reaching impact in the field of employment law. The decision marks the culmination of a trend in Ohio to expand the public policy exception doctrine and provide much needed protection for the rights of employees. Part II of this article discusses the broader development of the public policy exception, and Part III discusses the Kulch case specifically. The author concludes by stating that Kulch has emerged as the seminal Ohio case in employment law relating to the public policy exception, largely because Kulch provides wrongfully discharged employees the means to obtain full …
What Kulch Accomplished; What Kulch Left Out, Sandra J. Kerber
What Kulch Accomplished; What Kulch Left Out, Sandra J. Kerber
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
An analysis of the rights of terminated whistleblowers in Ohio, as mandated by section 4113.52 of the Ohio Revised Code and interpreted by Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997).
Evidentiary And Constitutional Implications Of Employee Drug Testing Through Hair Analysis, Theresa K. Casserly
Evidentiary And Constitutional Implications Of Employee Drug Testing Through Hair Analysis, Theresa K. Casserly
Cleveland State Law Review
This note addresses the legal issues affecting hair analysis as a drug detector. Part II outlines a background of hair analysis. Part III presents the scientific controversy that surrounds hair analysis. Part IV addresses cases involving hair analysis. Part V examines the privacy implications of employee drug testing through hair analysis. Part VI overviews statutes which affect this method of employee drug testing.