Many retailers were concerned about their COVID-19 liabilities as they started to reopen their doors amidst the pandemic. Attorney Kevin Murch shared information to help retailers make sure they were doing their due diligence to minimize risks. Read his full article with tips for businesses featured in Total Retail.
As COVID-19 vaccines became available, questions arose about whether employers could require their associates to get the vaccine and if it was a smart business decision to do so. Lead Attorney Elizabeth Weeden shared considerations for businesses creating their workplace vaccination plans. Read her full article featured in Smart Business.
With the recent FDA approval of several COVID-19 vaccines, questions have arisen about whether employers can require their workforce to take the COVID-19 vaccine and if so, whether it is a smart business decision to do so.
The short answer is yes, but with significant exceptions. Notably, the EEOC issued updated guidelines on December 16, 2020 confirming that employers can require employees to have the vaccine as a condition of continuing to work. However, exceptions to this include employees who have an underlying health condition or disability that precludes them from taking the vaccine, or those who have a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance that would prevent them from taking the vaccine.
The specific laws that are triggered by an employer required vaccination policy include the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These are the specific federal laws that protect employees and enable employees to argue that they should be precluded from participating in a mandatory vaccine requirement.
If an employee requests an accommodation under one of the federal laws, the employer has an obligation to determine if a reasonable accommodation is possible, without causing undue hardship to the employer. For example, it may be possible to allow the person to work from home or to work in a sequestered area of the business location. If it is not possible to make an accommodation and it is determined that unvaccinated individuals pose a potential threat to the safety of the workplace, an employer does have a right to exclude the person from physically entering the workplace. That does not mean that an employer should terminate the individual’s employment as they may be eligible for other forms of leave or protection under federal, state, or local laws.
In speaking with several Ohio employers about this issue, it seems that most employers are choosing to institute a voluntary vaccination program. Some employees have health insurance that covers vaccinations, and some do not. To encourage those without health insurance to get the vaccination, some employers have creatively thought of ways to incentivize the obtaining of a vaccination by providing a few hours of time off or gift cards to employees who voluntarily get the vaccination.
It will likely be several months before a vaccine is available to a majority of Ohioans. This delay gives employers time to think about whether they want to have a mandatory vaccine requirement or whether they simply want to encourage employees to get the vaccination voluntarily. It is important to remember that information regarding mandatory vaccinations and the EEOC’s position on this is fluid and will be changed and updated on an ongoing basis as medical information becomes available regarding the vaccinations, and it is therefore important to continue to check for updated information.
Beth has represented and advised employers for thirty years regarding all aspects of their workers’ compensation and risk management programs. Beth’s philosophy is that preparation and attention to detail are the hallmarks of a successful defense plan. Her practice includes representation of employers at all administrative hearing levels before the Industrial Commission of Ohio and the adjudicating bodies of the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.
Beth received her JD from Capital University Law School in 1988. She resides in Bexley, Ohio with her husband and two children. Read more
Involuntary denial of boarding a flight, also known as getting “bumped,” has been a common practice by airlines for years. It occurs in situations where there are more passengers scheduled to fly on an airplane than available seats. When a flight is full and overbooked, airlines use their own criteria to chose which passenger(s) will be removed or “bumped” from the flight.
In a recent case of “bumping,” in Lockhart v. Coastal Air Transport, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands affirmed the award of damages to a passenger who was wrongfully denied boarding an international flight from Dominica to St. Croix, initially due to an erroneous ticketing issue that was determined to be the fault of the airline. Lockhart at 1. On appeal, the primary question the Court addressed was the issue of whether a passenger who was involuntarily denied boarding (“bumped”) is entitled to compensation when the plane has a capacity of only nine seats. Importantly, although this case was within the purview of the Montreal Convention (“Convention”), as it involved international carriage, the Court noted that the airline had waived its right to assert defenses under the Convention because the airline did not raise those defenses in its responsive pleadings.[1] Lockhart at fn. 2. Instead, the airline relied upon Section 250 of the Code of Federal Regulations as authority to support its position that the passenger was not entitled to recovery for compensatory damages, such as the cost of the ticket and subsequent expenses including overnight accommodations.
Specifically, the airline argued that the passenger’s recovery was precluded under 14 C.F.R. §250.6, which permits an airline to deny a passenger from boarding an oversold flight in the event the aircraft has 60 or less seats and is unable to accommodate additional passengers due to weight/balance restrictions related to operation and safety. Lockhart at 2. In affirming the trial court’s award for the passenger, the Court endorsed the position that private legal action is permissible if airlines refuse recompense or passengers do not agree to an airline’s proposed compensation in “bumping” situations. Id. at 3. The Court determined that §250.6 was inapplicable because the airline presented no evidence that the passenger was denied boarding due to weight or balance restrictions. The Court also found that §250 did not apply in the first place because it is limited to a category of aircrafts that have a designed passenger capacity of 30 or more passenger seats, and the aircraft at issue was limited to only nine seats. Lockhart at 2. As a result, this case was governed by local law rather than the Code of Federal Regulations. Id. at 3.
As seen in Lockhart, multiple controlling authorities have the potential to govern these types of claims, including the Code of Federal Regulations, the Montreal Convention, local law, and potentially other sources. While individual facts and circumstances in each case will ultimately determine whether liability exists and the extent of available damages, the Montreal Convention can serve to provide levels of limitation on recovery and may provide grounds for complete dismissal in certain situations. Although the passenger’s recovery in Lockhart was ultimately upheld, the airline was fortunate that the scope of this particular claim was limited to nominal compensatory damages. In many situations, waiving defenses provided under the Montreal Convention is a risky proposition as the Convention provides a number of limitations on recovery and safeguards for air carriers, including caps on delay damages per Article 19, preclusion of recovery for delays under Article 17, in addition to the prohibition of emotional and punitive damages. Carriers flying internationally rely on these limitations on recovery, and risk losing these protections when waiving the defense of the Montreal Convention.
[1] It is unknown whether waiving defenses under the Montreal Convention was done intentionally or not.
Michael W. Aceto concentrates his practice in the areas of product liability, toxic tort, environmental, and general liability claims. He is a trial lawyer with experience defending companies and individuals in matters involving mass torts including asbestos, benzene, talc, mold, lead, and other chemicals, and dedicates a significant portion of his practice to complex product liability actions involving industrial equipment, commercial and consumer motor vehicles, construction machinery, and household consumer products.
Before entering private practice, Michael served as a law clerk in the Torts Litigation Section of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and as a judicial law clerk to the Hon. Edward Griffith in the Chester County, PA Court of Common Pleas. In addition, he focuses his pro bono practice on counseling non-profit organizations in the educational system. Read more
Gray has extensive New York civil litigation experience defending high exposure cases involving alleged premises, construction, elevator, New York State Labor Law, environmental and toxic torts, asbestos, landscaping, auto, and municipality claims. Prior to joining Perez Morris Hyde, Gray spent over 5 years with his prior firm as lead counsel for cases at the Trial and Appellate levels, including a published and favorable decision by the First Department, Appellate Division of New York. Dillon K. v. N. Blvd. 4818, LLC, 161 A.D.3d 664, 77 N.Y.S.3d 69 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
Gray is excited to be a part of the growing and collaborative, NAMWOLF certified team at Perez Morris. Read more
On January 12, 2021, Governor Mike DeWine signed into law HB 352, the Employment Law Uniformity Act. This new legislation will have a significant impact on employers including: a shortened statute of limitations for workplace discrimination actions; requirement to exhaust administrative remedies with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC); limitation on individual liability; and clarification of age discrimination claims. The law will go into effect on April 12, 2021.
Statute of Limitations
Under the Employment Law Uniformity Act, the statute of limitations for all workplace discrimination actions has been changed from six years to two years. The previous six year period was the longest in the United States. In conjunction with the revision to the civil statute of limitations, the window for filing an administrative charge OCRC has been extended from 180 days to 2 years.
Requirement to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Employees making workplace discrimination claims are now required to file with the OCRC before filing a claim in a county court of common pleas. Previously, an employee could file only in court or could simultaneously file with the OCRC and in court.
Individual Liability
Pursuant to the new law, supervisors and managers cannot be held individually liable so long as he or she is acting in the interest of the employer. Prior to this law, higher level employees could be named as individual defendants and could be held individually liable for decisions pertaining to employee disciplinary action or termination.
Age Discrimination
The Employment Law Uniformity Act clarifies the state’s multiple age discrimination statutes by aligning age claims with claims for all other types of discrimination. As such, age claims will be subject to the 2-year statute of limitations and administrative exhaustion.
As a general matter, the Employment Law Uniformity Act puts Ohio’s laws more in line with their federal counterparts such as Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA. Please contact us with any questions regarding the new law or any other employment matters.
Anne Marie defends clients in all general litigation claims from inception to resolution, including claims of property damage, personal injury, wrongful death, and breach of contract. She has experience working in all levels of the judicial system in numerous states.
Anne Marie lives in Clintonville with her husband, Mark, and two daughters, Quincy and Eliza. Read more
The honor afforded to just 1% of licensed lawyers in jurisdiction will allow Hyde to aid in propelling the legal sector towards equality and justice
Philadelphia, Pa. (January 14, 2020) – Today, Perez Morris announces that Charity Hyde, Managing Attorney of the firm’s Northeast offices, has been invited to join the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation. Although nationally known as Perez Morris, the firm operates as Perez Morris Hyde LLC throughout the Northeast.
Charity has been with the firm for two years and oversees the firm’s litigation in the Northeast region of the U.S. She has built a presence for Columbus, Ohio-based Perez Morris in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, along with her team in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts, rooted in diversity, philanthropy and justice. Her core practice includes aviation-related litigation, premises liability, commercial transportation and motor vehicle liability, premises liability, and insurance fraud investigation. She also spent more than two decades litigating complex toxic tort claims.
To be invited to become a fellow, attorneys must be nominated by a group of peers as a result of progressive work in the legal field. Fellows contribute to the American Bar Foundation’s research at the intersection of law and the social sciences, aiding in research, programming, writing, and policy recommendations have helped move the legal profession and society as a whole toward greater equality and justice.
“I am extremely humbled to be selected as a Fellow by this incredible organization that has performed such important research to address diversity and equal justice, education and critical questions at the intersection of law and society,” said Charity Hyde. “Throughout my career, I have strived to lead by example and give back, and this opportunity allows me to focus on areas of the law and society itself that are incredibly important to me while servicing the needs of my clients.”
Only 1% of licensed lawyers in this jurisdiction are afforded the honor of being admitted. Perez Morris is proud to have a member of the team working to move the legal sector forward towards greater equality and justice, especially during a time where work in propelling racial justice is so critical.
“We are so proud of Charity and her exemplary leadership in the legal profession, as well as within our firm. I can say, after having worked alongside her, the honor is well-deserved,” said Sarah Perez, Firm Managing Partner. “We are always striving to reach new heights in our practice and in serving clients, and Charity exemplifies our firm’s values in this regard.”
About Perez Morris
Perez Morris is a women-owned business law firm headquartered in Columbus, Ohio with offices in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and attorneys licensed to practice across the country. In the Northeast, the firm operates as Perez Morris Hyde. We guide our business clients to manage their risk and make deals happen. We provide general counsel, business litigation, and commercial transactional services nationwide with a focus on cost-effective, practical, industry-savvy advice that allows our clients to continue to grow and thrive.
When the COVID-19 virus continued to spread, many retailers worried about their liabilities and customer/associate wellbeing as they kept their doors open. Attorney Kevin Murch shared legal considerations for retailers and state laws that protect retailers from civil liability where customers claim they were infected by the COVID-19 virus while shopping at a retailer’s store or entering a business. Read his full article featured in Retail TouchPoints.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers were challenged to defend themselves against workers’ compensation claims filed by employers who alleged they contracted the virus in the course of their employment. Shutdowns and the widespread nature of the virus changed how employers needed to think about these claims. Lead Attorney Elizabeth Weeden shared information businesses should consider when defending against a claim. Read her full article featured in Smart Business.
On October 1, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in Stiner v. Amazon.com, Inc., holding that Amazon is not a “supplier” as defined by the Ohio Products Liability Act (the “Act”) with respect to certain third-party sales that are transacted through the Amazon website.
The lawsuit arose from the death of Logan Stiner, who died in May 2014 after ingesting a fatal dose of caffeine powder one of his friends purchased from a third-party vendor. The vendor sold the powder on Amazon.com Marketplace. In order to sell the powder on the website, the vendor agreed it would “source, sell, fulfill, ship and deliver” the products it sold on the website. In accordance with this agreement, the vendor kept the powder in its own inventory and, when Stiner’s friend purchased the powder through Amazon’s website, the vendor fulfilled the order, packaged it, and shipped it directly to Stiner’s friend.
Stiner’s family filed suit seeking, among other things, to hold Amazon strictly liable as a supplier under the Act. The trial court granted Amazon’s motion for summary judgment and the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that there was no evidence in the record that Amazon was a supplier under the Act.
The Ohio Supreme Court examined the definition of “supplier” in the Act, which includes a “person that, in the course of a business conducted for the purpose, sells, distributes, leases, prepares, blends, packages, labels, or otherwise participates in the placing of a product in the stream of commerce.” The family argued that Amazon was a supplier because it participated in placing the caffeine powder in the stream of commerce. The Court disagreed. The Court explained that the catchall provision – “otherwise participates in the placing of a product in the stream of commerce” – means actions similar in character to the sale, distribution, lease, preparation, blending, packaging, or labeling of the product as specified in the definition of “supplier.” The Court relied on other subsections of the Act to illustrate that persons, such as parties who act only in a financial capacity with respect to the sale of a product, may participate in the chain of a product’s distribution without being considered a “supplier.” In short, the Court held that a person who “otherwise participates in the placing of a product in the stream of commerce” must also “exert some control over the product as a prerequisite to supplier liability.”
With this rationale, the Court found that “[u]nder the facts of this case,” Amazon was not a supplier of the caffeine powder. The vendor who sold the powder to Stiner’s friend “had sole responsibility for the fulfillment, packaging, labeling, and shipping of the product directly to customers.” Amazon, on the other hand, had “no relationship with the manufacturer or entities in the seller’s distribution channel.” Thus, because Stiner’s family could not establish that Amazon exercised control over the caffeine powder, they could not establish that Amazon was a “supplier” under the Act. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Kevin brings 20 years of litigation and trial experience representing clients in complex, commercial litigation matters to Perez Morris LLC. He focuses much of his practice on defending product liability cases. Kevin also represents financial industry clients in all facets of securities disputes.
Kevin resides in New Albany, Ohio with his wife, Elizabeth, and their two children. Read more
Businesses and business owners have been hit hard in recent months. The COVID-19 pandemic forced closures and altered the way most businesses operate to varying degrees. Just as many cities were beginning to reopen, civil unrest, including riots and looting, have left many commercial entities with significant property and economic damage. As businesses assess and address the damage and turn towards rebuilding, below are considerations and possible avenues for loss recovery.
Insurance coverage is the most obvious source of recovery for property damage from riots or civil unrest. Many commercial, business, auto, and home property and casualty insurance policies cover damage to property caused by fire, explosions, riots or civil commotion, vandalism, theft, or malicious mischief. Potential sources for coverage include:
Recovery under any policy of insurance will be subject to the terms of each policy holder’s individual coverage, applicable deductibles, and some policies may not cover the types of losses sustained during riots. While insurance coverage is the most likely source of recovery to provide reimbursement and compensation for losses, businesses must also take into consideration the impact on future policy premiums when submitting claims. Additionally, for businesses which self-insure, this is not a viable source of recovery.
Another potential source of recovery is from the individual(s) who physically caused the damage. In certain limited circumstances, entities may also pursue claims against the organizer(s) of the protest or action for the unlawful conduct of others who carried out the destruction.[1] However, there are practical roadblocks in pursuing recovery from individuals. Challenges related to identification of the perpetrator(s), costs associated with investigating and pursuing potentially numerous claims, issues of proof, and concerns related to collectability make claims against individuals a likely difficult and costly avenue from which to recoup losses. With the improvement of facial recognition technology, surveillance (both private and through local or federal agencies), social media, pervasiveness of media coverage, and the assistance of local and national law enforcement, individuals who caused property damaged may be able to be identified and pursued civilly. However, the resources necessary to identify or pursue claims against individuals may exceed potential recovery.
If criminal action is taken by the state against an individual, entities can also, or alternatively, rely on the governmental investigation and seek restitution through the criminal proceeding. Again though, with damage largely being caused in riot settings, where numerous potential perpetrators are present, governmental agencies may elect not to prosecute or investigate claims. Moreover, individual state compensation and restitution schemes may limit the amount recoverable.
The federal government allows all U.S. states and territories to apply for the Crime Victims Compensation program, however, it generally excludes theft, damage, and property loss recovery.[2] Individual states also offer crime victim compensation funds which may be an additional source for recovery, although it is common for these funds to exclude or limit payment for property expenses. For example, Ohio’s Crime Victims Compensation program excludes payments for stolen, damaged, or lost property, but allows reimbursement for certain aspects of crime scene cleanup.[3] New York’s program allows for certain property damage compensation up to $500, and crime scene cleanup reimbursement up to $2,500.[4]
Some of the states hardest hit by looting and rioting have statutes barring compensation for criminal property damage. In Minnesota, the Crime Victims Compensation Program provides for crime scene cleanup reimbursement, but only for crimes involving personal injury; property crimes are not covered.[5] Georgia compensates victims of gang-related, graffiti property damage, however, it does not otherwise compensate victims of property loss crimes.[6] Likewise, in Washington, the Crime Victims Program will not pay for crime scene cleanup or the loss of property.[7] In Illinois, damaged locks and windows may be compensable under certain situations, however, a victim must exhaust insurance coverage prior to seeking reimbursement from the Illinois Crime Victims Compensation Program.[8]
In contemplating whether to pursue individuals or organizers of politically charged protests, either civilly or criminally, businesses should also take into account the public relation impact of pursuing these actions given the ever-increasing impact of social media commentary on brand reputation.
Entities may also turn to third parties to seek recovery for some or all of the damage incurred. While each state varies in its applicable causes of action, the basis for claims may arise from the contract between the parties, common law and statutory indemnification actions, and common law and statutory contribution actions. Potentially liable third parties include:
Lease agreements with landlords and service agreements with vendors, security companies, property management companies, and operations management staff may provide a contractual basis for recovery. Many applicable contracts include indemnification provisions, allotting the financial responsibility to remedy damage to the property to one party. Common law and statutory indemnification and contribution actions can also provide means to obtain reimbursement from those who owe certain duties under the law to others, such as neighboring tenants or adjacent property owners.
As with individuals, pursuing government actors or the state itself to recovery losses may prove to be an uphill battle. Some states may permit claims against the State, municipalities, and/or political subdivisions within the state, under several theories, including contract, quasi-contract, and tort. If such actions are permitted, which is a state-by-state inquiry, there are several other factors to consider, including individual statute of limitations, notice and form requirements, consent requirements, applicable damages caps, and principles of absolute immunity, qualified immunity, or other affirmative defenses the state, municipality or political subdivision may raise.
If damage to the property was incurred because of the actions of government employees, most states provide immunity from suit for damages if the government employee was enforcing, or failed to enforce, a statute or regulation. In other words, if an officer caused damage to a business’ property while carrying out the applicable laws, they are shielded from a suit for those damages.
Further, some states specifically ban actions against the state for damage resulting from riots. For example, under Georgia law, the state cannot be held liable for damages from civil disturbance, riot, insurrection, or rebellion or the failure to provide, or the method of providing, law enforcement, police, or fire protection.[9] Others have statutes allowing liability. New York’s municipal law provides that under certain circumstances, a city or county will be liable for property which is destroyed or injured by a mob or riot.[10]
Federal aid for recovery is unlikely since the Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana ex rel. Folsom v. New Orleans, holding the individual states have the ability to create statutes granting such relief. “The right to reimbursement for damages caused by a mob or riotous assemblage of people is not founded upon any contract between the city and the sufferers. Its liability for the damages is created by a law of the legislature, and can be withdrawn or limited at its pleasure.”[11] Thus, if government aid is provided it will likely come from the states.[12]
States may choose to enact legislation in response to the unrest. There are already state emergency orders and executive orders in response to the unrest which may allot funds for managing and recovering from the damage, including property damage. For example, Virginia Executive Order 64 authorizes up to $350,000 in state funds for state and local response to the emergency, which was implemented in part, to “restore order,….[and] protect property.”[13] It remains unclear whether these funds will be made available to private entities or citizens to remedy the property damage suffered by business owners.
At least one state has already proposed legislation directly targeting the businesses damaged or destroyed because of the protests. Minnesota law makers introduced the Promise Act on June 15, 2020 which “include[s] $125 million in cash from the state’s general fund for immediate grants and loans to business owners….to help the riot-damaged areas.”[14]
However, even if a state enacts legislation in response to civil unrest and rioting, it is unlikely property owners will see immediate aid, and may not fully be made whole. The legislative process can be cumbersome to navigate and slow to act, and funds, once available, may be allocated and exhausted quickly.
Individual cities are also acting to create their own funds. City led initiatives can often be implemented more quickly than state-wide measures. Birmingham, for example, announced the Birmingham Business Relief Fund which supports small businesses damaged during the unrest.[15]
Some private organizations may offer businesses assistance and fill the void left by other recovery options, although most private organizations offering recovery assistance tend to operate as charity organizations targeting assistance to small businesses or those most harmed by the rioting. These funds generally operate as “grassroot” opportunities for aid, may have specific threshold requirements or unique criteria for qualifying for assistance, and are typically exhausted quickly.
Likewise, local social groups are initiating efforts to aid their cities and communities. In Chicago, a group called My Block, My Hood, My City is collecting donations to support business owners who suffered property damage at the hands of looters.[16] Some local Chamber of Commerce groups have set up individual funds on crowdsourcing sites as well.[17] Individual businesses can also establish their own crowdfunding request within the parameters of the crowdfunding platform’s guidelines. Also, local groups may offer business loans or grants to aid in relief efforts.[18] It remains unclear the extent to which crowdfunded or charity aid will be provided to larger businesses or corporations, but may offer immediate relief for smaller entities, franchises, or independently-owned locations.
Securing the immediate assessment of the damage, cleaning up, and rebuilding can be overwhelming and difficult tasks. To ease the process, the following steps outline the essential factors to consider when evaluating the damage:
Businesses across the country are facing the daunting task of rebuilding after widespread property damage and economic loss caused by rioters, protesters, and looters. There are several potential avenues for recovery or reimbursement for the costs associated with these losses. The most likely source of relief will come from insurance policies. However, businesses can turn to individuals for restitution or reimbursement, as well as third parties with whom the business had a relationship either through contract or by operation of law. Similarly, some states may allow for suits against the state, city, municipality, or government actors under certain conditions. State and local aid may be allocated through pending or future legislation to provide assistance in repairing and rebuilding after the civil unrest. Finally, private, charity, and crowdsourcing funding in the form of charitable relief, grants, or loans may be made available to help business recover. In all, businesses should explore all potential sources of relief to ensure they are made whole from this destruction. Please contact us at [email protected] to discuss business- and state-specific options.
_______________________________
The information provided in this article does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Instead, all information, content, and material in this survey is for general informational purposes only. Information in this article may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.
Please contact Perez & Morris, LLC at (614) 431-1500 for specific applicability of this information to your property.
[1] Three theories may justify holding an organizer liable for the unlawful conduct of others. First, a finding that the organizer authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity would justify holding them individually responsible for the consequences of that activity. Second, a finding that the organizer’s public speeches were likely to incite lawless action could justify individual liability for unlawful conduct that in fact followed within a reasonable period. Third, the speeches might be taken as evidence the organizer gave other specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 927, 102 S. Ct. 3409, 3433, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1215 (1982).
[2] State Crime Victims Compensation, Benefits.gov, https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/4416 (last visited June 19, 2020).
[3] Crime Victims Compensation Guidelines, Ohio Attorney General, https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Individuals-and-Families/Victims/Apply-for-Victims-Compensation/Crime-Victims-Compensation-Guidelines (last visited June 19, 2020).
[4] General FAQ, Office of Victim Services, New York State, https://ovs.ny.gov/faq (last visited June 19, 2020).
[5] Crime Victims Reparations Board, Minnesota Dep’t. of Public Safet0y, https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/help-for-crime-victims/Pages/crime-victims-reparations.aspx#:~:text=Our%20mission%20is%20to%20reduce,of%20restitution%20and%20civil%20awards (last visited July 13, 2020).
[6] Ga. Code. Ann. § 17-15-7 (1981); Ga. Code. Ann. § 17-15A-3 (1981).
[7] Crime Victims Claims, Washington State Dep’t of Labor & Industries, https://lni.wa.gov/claims/crime-victim-claims/who-can-file-and-what-is-covered#what-are-the-benefits (last visited July 13, 2020).
[8] Crime Victims Compensation: Frequently Asked Questions, Illinois Attorney General, https://ag.state.il.us/victims/CV_FAQ_0619.pdf (last visited July 13, 2020).
[9] Ga. Code. Ann. § 50-21-24.
[10] N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 71.
[11] Louisiana ex Rel. Folsom v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U.S. 285, 287 (1883).
[12] See, e.g., “We do not offer assistance for small businesses impacted by a presidentially-declared disaster.” Individual Disaster Assistance, FEMA https://www.fema.gov/individual-disaster-assistance (last visited June 19, 2020) (denying FEMA relief for COVID-19 related expenses). After the 2015 riots in Baltimore, FEMA declared federal aid for riot recovery “is not appropriate for this event.” Andrea McDaniels, Federal Government Denies Disaster Baltimore Riot Aid Again, The Baltimore Sun, Jul. 30, 2015 https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-fema-denial-20150730-story.html.
[13] Carol Vaughn, Governor Declares Emergency in Wake of George Floyd Protest; Shore Organizers Plan Peaceful Rallies, Eastern Shore Post, June 1, 2020 https://www.easternshorepost.com/2020/06/01/governor-declares-state-of-emergency-in-wake-of-civil-unrest-in-george-floyd-protests/.
[14] Jessie Van Berkel, DFL Proposes $300M for Riot-Damages Businesses in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Star Tribune, June 15, 2020 https://www.startribune.com/dfl-proposes-300m-for-riot-damaged-businesses-in-minneapolis-st-paul/571277972/.
[15] New Fund Launched to Aid Small Business Impacted by Sunday Unrest: Here’s How You Can Help, Birmingham B. J., June 1, 2020 https://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2020/06/01/fund-launched-small-business-impact.html.
[16] Small Business Relief Fund, My Block, My Hood, My City https://www.formyblock.org/ (last visited June 19, 2020) (“Out-of-state looters have taken hammers and batons to our communities, breaking windows of small businesses and spraying graffiti, using this crisis as an opportunity to tear down black communities. Funds raised will go to support our ongoing operations and efforts to repair small businesses.”).
[17] See, e.g., Brittany Meiling, This is My Stuff! That’s My Business! La Mesa Business Owner Confronts Looters During Riots, San Diego Trubune, June 1, 2020 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-06-01/la-mesa-small-business-riots-vandalism (“The East County Chamber of Commerce has set up a GoFundMe page to help support small- business owners affected by the riots.”).
[18] After the 2015 riots in Baltimore, the Baltimore Development Corp. made loans and grants available to business to repair property damage. See Yvonne Wenger, Unrest Will Cost City $20 Million, Officials Estimate, The Baltimore Sun, May 26, 2015 https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-unrest-cost-20150526-story.html (the Baltimore Development Corp. offered “grants up to $5,000 and zero-interest loans of up to $35,000” to business for property damage repair).
Rebecca Johnson concentrates her practice in the areas of complex commercial litigation and construction matters, property and casualty litigation, general liability claims investigation and litigation, malpractice defense, and workers’ compensation matters. She is a trial lawyer with experience defending companies and individuals in general liability and complex litigation matters. Rebecca has experience in all aspects of the litigation process from inception to disposition, including pleadings and discovery preparation, depositions, motion practice, case valuation, pretrial management, and trial.
Before becoming an attorney, Rebecca gained a decade of experience in business management, business practices, and corporate growth, development, and formation strategies. Read more
Amanda joined the firm as an attorney in 2018. Her practice areas include employment, commercial litigation, transactional matters, property, coverage and transportation. Prior to joining the firm, Amanda was a law clerk for a Columbus-based Fortune 500 company in its trial division, and was also a legal intern for the Federal Communications Commission’s Enforcement Bureau in Washington, D.C. She served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and assisted clients as a Certified Legal Intern in Moritz’s Civil Law Clinic.
Prior to attending law school, Amanda spent three years at Perez Morris assisting attorneys in all practice areas. Amanda graduated from The Ohio State University in 2012 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Human Ecology Read more
Michael W. Aceto concentrates his practice in the areas of product liability, toxic tort, environmental, and general liability claims. He is a trial lawyer with experience defending companies and individuals in matters involving mass torts including asbestos, benzene, talc, mold, lead, and other chemicals, and dedicates a significant portion of his practice to complex product liability actions involving industrial equipment, commercial and consumer motor vehicles, construction machinery, and household consumer products.
Before entering private practice, Michael served as a law clerk in the Torts Litigation Section of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and as a judicial law clerk to the Hon. Edward Griffith in the Chester County, PA Court of Common Pleas. In addition, he focuses his pro bono practice on counseling non-profit organizations in the educational system. Read more