Summary of September 2025 Labor Law Updates for Cincinnati, Ohio
Welcome to the monthly Ohio labor law roundup for September 2025, intended for employees, HR professionals, and compliance leaders. Below is a curated summary of key developments—statutory, regulatory, and judicial—that affect workplace rights and employer obligations in Ohio. This update is brought to you by HKM Employment Attorneys’ Cincinnati, Ohio team.
September 2025 saw a major statutory shift with Ohio’s new WARN (mini-WARN) law coming into force, a noteworthy remote-work pay decision in Lott, and continued federal support for dislocated workers in Ohio. Employers should reassess layoff practices, remote work policies, and internal compliance protocols in light of these developments. If you or your organization have questions or need tailored guidance about these topics under Ohio labor law / workplace rights, please feel free to contact HKM Employment Attorneys (https://hkm.com).
Ohio “Mini-WARN” / Ohio WARN Act — Legislation
Date: September 29, 2025 (effective date)
Summary:
In 2025, the Ohio Legislature enacted House Bill 96, which includes a state-level “mini-WARN” statute codified as Ohio Revised Code § 4113.31. The act becomes effective on September 29, 2025. Under the new statute, covered employers must provide advance notice for plant closings or mass layoffs under Ohio law, with requirements that extend beyond existing federal WARN obligations. Key triggering thresholds: (1) the employer employs at least 100 employees working collectively a minimum of 4,000 hours per week, and (2) a layoff or closing affects 50 or more employees at a single site within a 30-day period.
The Ohio WARN Act mandates additional notice recipients (including the chief elected official of the county) and expanded content in the notice (e.g., reasons for the layoff, identification of affected departments, information on unemployment benefits and retraining services). The statute also indicates that employers must comply with both the federal WARN Act and the Ohio WARN Act, which may generate conflicts or ambiguity (for instance, regarding percentage-based thresholds under federal law).
Implications:
Employers in Ohio planning mass layoffs or plant closings must carefully assess whether the Ohio WARN Act applies in addition to federal WARN obligations beginning September 29, 2025. Notices must incorporate greater detail and reach additional government recipients beyond what federal law requires. The overlap of federal and state rules may generate uncertainty (e.g., whether the Ohio statute overrides federal “33 percent” thresholds), so employers should closely monitor guidance from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). Employers with multi-state operations or remote sites should audit whether Ohio-level obligations are triggered and coordinate compliance across jurisdictions.
Lott v. Recker Consulting LLC — Federal District Court Ruling: Remote Work & Compensable Pre/Post Work Time
Date: September 2025 (opinion filed)
Summary:
In Lott v. Recker Consulting LLC, plaintiffs (call center employees working remotely) alleged their employer failed to compensate for time spent booting up computers, logging in, shutting down, and other preparatory or closing tasks, asserting those tasks constituted compensable work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Judge Douglas R. Cole granted summary judgment for the employer, concluding that turning on a computer (or logging in) is not “integral and indispensable” to the principal work, particularly in a remote work setting, because such activity may support non-work tasks (i.e. it is not inherently conferrable to compensation). The court distinguished remote settings from in-person workplaces and questioned prior holdings in other circuits that more readily deemed preliminary/postliminary digital tasks compensable.
Implications (for Ohio employers/employees):
This decision adds to uncertainty around compensable time in remote work settings, particularly in Ohio’s federal district. Employers may cite Lott as precedent (or persuasive authority) when evaluating remote employees’ claims for boot-up/log-off time. However, because the decision is at the district level and the law remains unsettled, employers should carefully evaluate job functions on a case-by-case basis and consider potential changes in future appellate or circuit-level rulings. Employers should review remote work policies and timekeeping practices to ensure clarity around compensable tasks before and after core work time.
U.S. Department of Labor Dislocated Worker Grant to Ohio
Date: September 18, 2025
Summary:
On September 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor awarded $2 million to Ohio under a National Dislocated Worker Grant to assist workers impacted by the closure of the Pixelle Specialty Solutions paper mill in Chillicothe, Ohio.
The funding is administered through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and is intended to provide retraining and employment services to dislocated workers in affected counties (including Fairfield, Hocking, Jackson, Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Scioto, and Vinton).
Implications:
This grant provides a meaningful resource for workers displaced by industrial closures in the region. Employers in or near impacted counties may participate in retraining or outplacement programs tied to the grant. The announcement underscores ongoing federal support for workforce transitions in distressed communities in Ohio.
State ex rel. Blaine v. State Employment Relations Board — Ohio Supreme Court (reporting)
Date: decision published June 26, 2025 (but official report release included in September 2025 case announcements)
Summary:
The Ohio Supreme Court’s slip opinions were replaced in the September 29, 2025 advance sheet publication. State ex rel. Blaine v. SERB involved the court’s review of SERB’s dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge under R.C. 4117.11(B)(6). The court ordered SERB to vacate its dismissal and reconsider the charge in light of all relevant facts.
Implications:
This ruling underscores that SERB’s dismissal of unfair labor practice charges may be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, particularly under R.C. 4117. For unions, public employers, and labor counsel in Ohio, the decision reinforces the importance of thorough factual review when asserting or defending unfair labor practice charges in the public sector.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Ohio Labor Law Updates from September 2025
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 no‑fee‑unless‑we‑win representation, 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.
