March 2026 Labor Law Updates for Cincinnati, Ohio
March 2026 brought several notable Ohio labor law and employment law developments, including new employer compliance obligations and appellate decisions addressing discrimination, retaliation, contract-based limitations periods, and workers’ compensation. This roundup from HKM Employment Attorneys is designed for employees, HR professionals, and compliance leaders tracking Ohio workplace rights and March 2026 employment updates.
March 2026 was a meaningful month for Ohio labor law, especially with the effective date of H.B. 246 and several appellate rulings shaping how Ohio courts evaluate discrimination, retaliation, and workers’ compensation disputes. If you have questions about Ohio workplace rights, employer compliance, or a potential employment claim, contact HKM Employment Attorneys at HKM Employment Attorneys for guidance.
E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act (H.B. 246) — Legislation
Date: March 20, 2026
Summary:
Ohio’s new E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act took effect on March 20, 2026. The law applies to nonresidential construction contractors, subcontractors, and labor brokers. It requires covered employers to use E-Verify for each employee hired to work on a nonresidential construction project, maintain verification records, and stop employing a worker after a final nonconfirmation from E-Verify. The law also authorizes enforcement by the Ohio Attorney General, creates potential bid disqualification for state contracts, and in some circumstances allows license revocation.
Implications:
This is one of the clearest Ohio labor law changes from March 2026. Covered construction-sector employers should review hiring workflows, retention practices, subcontractor oversight, and state-contract language immediately. For workers, the new law may affect onboarding and continued employment in covered nonresidential construction roles across Ohio.
Fields-Arnold v. Central State University Board of Trustees — Court Ruling
Date: March 12, 2026
Case No.: No. 25AP-485 (10th Dist.)
Summary:
In Fields-Arnold v. Central State University Board of Trustees, the Tenth District affirmed summary judgment for the university on an employee’s claims involving discrimination and FMLA retaliation. The plaintiff had been promoted to executive director, later demoted, and alleged discriminatory treatment and retaliation tied to her FMLA leave. The court reiterated Ohio’s use of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for indirect proof of discrimination and held that summary judgment was proper. On the FMLA claim, the panel said summary judgment could stand even though it disagreed with part of the trial court’s reasoning, because the claim still failed on other grounds.
Implications:
For Ohio employers, the decision underscores the value of documenting performance-based reasons for demotion or other adverse actions. For employees, it shows how hard it can be to survive summary judgment without strong comparator evidence or proof that an employer’s stated reason was pretextual. It also highlights that temporal proximity alone may not carry an FMLA retaliation claim when the broader record cuts against causation.
Toth v. Rocket Mortgage, L.L.C. — Court Ruling
Date: March 19, 2026
Case No.: 2026-Ohio-926 (8th Dist.)
Summary:
In Toth v. Rocket Mortgage, L.L.C., the Eighth District reversed summary judgment on Ohio employment discrimination and retaliation claims and sent the case back for further proceedings. The trial court had concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by a one-year contractual limitations provision in her employment agreement. The appellate court held that the enforceability of that provision depended on whether Ohio or Michigan law governed the underlying civil-rights claims, and it said the trial court should have resolved that choice-of-law issue first.
Implications:
This ruling matters for multistate employers and employees working under agreements with choice-of-law or shortened-limitations clauses. In practical terms, Ohio employers should not assume a contractual one-year filing deadline will automatically defeat Chapter 4112 discrimination or retaliation claims. Employees may have room to challenge contractual restrictions where the governing law question has not been fully addressed.
Jones v. Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center — Court Ruling
Date: March 31, 2026
Case No.: No. 25AP-186 (10th Dist.)
Summary:
In Jones v. Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, the Tenth District affirmed summary judgment against a former department director who brought age and sex discrimination claims after her termination. Ohio State said she was discharged for unsatisfactory job performance, including leadership and communication issues. The court concluded that even if some record evidence called parts of the employer’s rationale into question, the plaintiff had not shown a genuine dispute that the stated performance-based reason was pretext for discrimination. It also found the comparator evidence lacking because the coworkers who absorbed parts of her duties were not shown to be similarly situated in relevant respects.
Implications:
This decision is a useful reminder that Ohio courts will focus closely on pretext evidence, not just whether a workplace was difficult or whether management made a harsh decision. For employees, the case illustrates the need for concrete evidence tying the adverse action to age or sex. For employers, it reinforces that detailed performance documentation can remain a strong defense in Ohio workplace rights litigation.
State ex rel. Kurtz v. Industrial Commission — Court Ruling
Date: March 12, 2026
Case No.: No. 24AP-395 (10th Dist.)
Summary:
In State ex rel. Kurtz v. Industrial Commission, the Tenth District addressed temporary total disability compensation under Ohio workers’ compensation law. The court held that once an injured worker reaches maximum medical improvement, temporary total disability payments are not payable for the period after that date, even if the formal hearing occurs later. The court also discussed recoupment of overpayments under the statute governing appeals of compensation orders.
Implications:
Although this is a workers’ compensation case rather than a discrimination case, it is still an important March 2026 Ohio employment update for employers, claims professionals, and injured workers. It may affect the timing of benefit termination disputes and overpayment recovery issues in Ohio claims administration.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Ohio Labor Law Updates from March 2026
With recent Ohio cases addressing wage theft, hostile work environments, and wrongful termination, now is the time to take action—and you don’t have to do it alone. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Cincinnati, our local lawyers have secured over $250 million in recoveries and never represent employers—we’re fierce advocates for employees facing discrimination, contract disputes, FMLA or ADA violations, non‑compete enforcement, whistleblower retaliation, and more. Known for responsive communication, personalized strategies, and localized expertise, we’ll guide you from reviewing your legal options to litigating in state or federal court. If the latest case trends hit too close to home, contact our Cincinnati office to learn how we can help defend your rights.
