Among the court’s seven cases to be heard Sept. 1 and 2 are a death-penalty appeal, a medical records case, and two attorney disciplinary matters.

Among the court’s seven cases to be heard Sept. 1 and 2 are a death-penalty appeal, a medical records case, and two attorney disciplinary matters.

Two employees from Montgomery County who sold advertising and worked on commission claim they should have been paid minimum wage because of a 2006 constitutional amendment passed by Ohio voters. Their former employer has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court because it believes the sales representatives were exempt from the minimum wage based on federal and state law.

The case will be heard, along with six others, during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments next week.

In 2006, voters approved the Fair Minimum Wage Amendment to the Ohio Constitution. The amendment set a specific minimum wage in the state, provided for annual increases, and defined “employee” based on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The legislature then enacted a statute to implement the amendment’s provisions and also defined “employee,” citing the federal law.

John Haight and Christopher Pence, ad sales representatives for a coupon magazine and website owned by Cheap Escape Company, filed a lawsuit in 2012 arguing the constitutional amendment didn’t state that outside sales representatives were exempt from minimum-wage requirements. Although the FLSA clearly excludes their profession from the minimum wage, the employees maintain that some of the FLSA’s exemptions were intentionally left out of the state amendment. Instead, the amendment provides its own specific list of employees exempt from the minimum wage, and outside sales representatives aren’t included, they note.

Cheap Escape’s former owners – Joan and Robert Minchak – point to the federal law, which states that outside sales representatives don’t have to be paid minimum wage. They maintain that the language of the constitutional amendment and the subsequent state law explicitly incorporated the FLSA’s definition of employee along with its exemptions.

Oral Arguments
The court will hear arguments in three cases, including a death-penalty appeal, on Tuesday, Sept. 1. Cheap Escape Company v. Haight is one of four cases to be considered by the court on Wednesday, Sept. 2. Sessions begin at 9 a.m. each day at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus, and the arguments will be streamed live online at sc.ohio.gov and broadcast live on The Ohio Channel.

Previews Available
Along with the brief descriptions below, the Office of Public Information today released in-depth previews of the cases.

Cases for Tuesday, Sept. 1

• A Maple Heights man was convicted in 2010 of murdering his grandparents after his grandfather told police some gold coins had been stolen. In Obermiller v. State, the man asks the court to overturn his conviction and death sentence because he wasn’t allowed to represent himself at trial, because the rape of his grandmother was wrongly considered as an aggravating circumstance in his grandfather’s murder, and because the three-judge panel admitted prejudical evidence, among other arguments.
• State v. Rosario arose after woman pled guilty to theft in Cuyahoga County. At a 2014 hearing about whether she had completed her community-control sanctions, the trial court refused to allow a county prosecutor to participate and only permitted the probation officer to testify. While the trial court claimed probation officers represent the state in these types of hearing, the county prosecutor insists in arguments to the Supreme Court that prosecutors are entitled to appear on behalf of the state.
• The professional conduct board in Cincinnati Bar Association v. Ball recommends an indefinite suspension for a Cincinnati lawyer who was convicted of drunk driving and who continued to talk with current and potential clients when he was inactive. The lawyer asserts that the board should have considered his alcohol addiction as a mitigating factor to lessen the proposed discipline.

Cases for Wednesday, Sept. 2

• Six large industrial businesses negotiated special electric rates with a Toledo power company in 2001. After the power company terminated the agreed-to rate early, five of the businesses won a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court returning overpaid charges. However, the sixth company, a Rossford automotive glass manufacturer, didn’t join the case that went to the Supreme Court, and the PUCO refused to refund any money to it. In this appeal of the PUCO ruling, the business asks whether it has the right to benefit from the high court’s decision in favor of the other companies.
• Following surgery at a Stark County hospital in 2012, a woman’s father developed an irregular heartbeat and died six days later. Suspicious that she hadn’t received all her father’s medical records, including cardiac monitor readouts before his death, the daughter filed a lawsuit. She contends in Griffith v. Aultman Hospital that the appeals court tried to limit the meaning of “medical records” to only those housed in the hospital’s medical records department. She argues that health-care providers are required to supply all medical records kept by the provider during a patient’s treatment.
• In Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams, the professional conduct board proposes that the court indefinitely suspend a former Akron judge and magistrate for having a sexual relationship with a defendant who appeared in his court, for falsifying a credit application, and for not distributing a settlement to clients. In his objections, the attorney asserts that his girlfriend, the former defendant, was abusive and violent, to the point of stabbing him, which affected his judgment. He also maintains that the court has imposed a lesser two-year suspension in similar cases.