Interested Party Testimony on SB 47, Ohio Association for Justice (Hans Nilges, March 8, 2022)

Summary

This is interested party testimony on SB 47 to the House Commerce and Labor Committee, dated March 8, 2022, from Hans Nilges, a wage and hour attorney in Cleveland, on behalf of the Ohio Association for Justice, where he serves on the Executive Committee. He says OAJ is deeply concerned about AM 2183, which he describes as changing the mechanism for litigating and settling overtime claims by eliminating opt-out claims and shifting them to an opt-in system. He argues that employees would have to affirmatively and publicly join a suit, that this would limit their ability to recover unpaid overtime, and that multiple claims for similar unpaid overtime wages would be likely. He closes by asking why overtime laws should make it harder for employees to be made whole than any other statute.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                     Interested Party Testimony to SB 47
                  House Commerce and Labor Committee
                                    March 8, 2022
Chair Stein, Vice-Chair Johnson, and Ranking Member Lapor-Hagan,

Thank you for providing the opportunity to testify to Senate Bill 47. My name is Hans
Nilges, and I am a wage and hour attorney in Cleveland. I am here on behalf of the Ohio
Association for Justice (OAJ), of which I serve on the Executive Committee. OAJ’s mission
is to support Ohioans’ Seventh Amendment right to a civil trial by jury, which is achieved
most efficiently when government stays out of disputes between parties.

I, and the OAJ, are deeply concerned about AM 2183. In summary, the amendment would
completely change the mechanism for litigating and settling overtime claims and
intentional limit how many blue collar workers will be compensated for unpaid overtime
served.

I think we can agree that our laws should not incentivize or be easily ignored to
advantage one business over another. Nor should the law incentivize underpaying
employees. AM 2183 would allow for both.

The amendment eliminates opt-out claims and shifts those claims to an opt-in system.
To explain, when all similarly tasked employees are not paid for overtime served, they
get to be grouped into a single lawsuit requesting the unpaid wages; employees can opt-
out of the suit. However, the amendment would change this process. Instead, similar
employees would have to affirmatively and publically join the suit. It’s a tough task to sue
your employers. No one wants to be seen as ungrateful or litigious. But everyone
derseves to be paid for work they’ve preformed.

Sadly, this legal maneuvering will limit employees’ ability to recover unpaid overtime
wages. Opt-out claims also prevent repeat litigation, because the defendant only needs
to settle the one suit and all employees would be paid only how much they are owed. By
changing to the opt-in system, multiple claims for similar unpaid overtime wages are
likely.


                                655 Metro Place S., Suite 140
                                     Dublin, OH 43017
Finally, in overtime law, there are no penalties for not paying overtime wages because
the opt-out mechanism allows everyone to be fully compensated. However, opt-in
procedures, like we have in the Constitutional minimum wage law, allow for penalty
damages as a means of deterring minimum wage law violations. This amendment is the
best of both worlds for the employers and the worst of both for unpaid employees.

Why should restorative statutes like overtime laws make it harder on employees to be
made whole than any other statute? Furthermore, why should the statute grant a
competitive advantage of lower wage costs for companies that violate overtime laws?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify, and I would be glad to address any
questions from the committee.


File and source

File

2022-03-08_commerce-labor_testimony_sb47opnilges.pdf

Size

91,711 bytes

SHA-256

435a84b0c8209c348cb86220458ca51cd1c1492d4cae06935191ca17df604ffa

Our copy

2022-03-08_commerce-labor_testimony_sb47opnilges.pdf

Original

No public link identified.