Ohio Employer Law Blog | Daily Updates | 01CA general release is just that>01D plus more

A general release is just that

"Quite simply, full means full and any means any."

That's a federal judge explaining to a plaintiff the meaning of a general release.

Jackilyn Bunnell sued William Beaumont Hospital for pregnancy discrimination and FMLA interference. She lost on summary judgment, won a partial reversal at the Sixth Circuit, and on remand sat down for a settlement conference with Judge Brandy McMillion. After hours of negotiation, the parties reached a deal that included a full release of all claims.

Then the deal started to move.

First she wanted a structured settlement. The court reminded her that was never a term. Next she wanted the release narrowed to employment claims, so she could carve out possible medical malpractice claims involving her minor child. Then came still more asks: 21 additional names in the non-disparagement clause, a different job title in her separation letter, and a third-party number for employment verification.

The court said no to all of it. She had to sign the settlement agreement by a date certain or risk contempt. Her lawyers, who said they couldn't ethically pursue her position, were allowed to withdraw, with their fees protected.

The timing here is what matters. The malpractice and other concerns never came up during negotiations. They surfaced only after the structured settlement idea died. That wasn't negotiated either.

For employers, the lesson is that the scope of the release is a material term. Settle it in the room. Put "full release of all claims" in the term sheet and get signatures before anyone leaves the conference. You won't always have a judge who sat through the whole negotiation and remembers every word. "He said/she said" motions to enforce settlements are messy, expensive, and uncertain.

If you're paying for a general release, make sure you get one, and make sure the other side understands it before they sign. A general release is just that: general.

The most expensive thing on this brewery's menu? Retaliation.

Notch 8 Brewery's owner told a bartender he would not tolerate her "backdoor" conversations with coworkers. The NLRB just said those words are direct evidence of animus.

Rebecca Spitzer had been a beertender at the brewery for about seven weeks. She heard coworkers complaining about long hours and missed breaks, and told them they might be owed overtime and could contact the NLRB or the Department of Labor. Then she contacted the Department of Labor herself.

Two days later, the owner called her into his office, angrily said someone he trusted had told him what she was doing, and sent her home. That same day, the brewery posted on Facebook that it was hiring beertenders.

In defending against the unfair labor practice charge, the brewery claimed that she drank on the job, served beer from competing breweries, committed petty theft, and lacked an alcohol certificate. It also said she abandoned her job. The ALJ found the misconduct unproven and concluded that the brewery had unlawfully fired Spitzer because of her protected concerted activity.

The NLRB just affirmed that decision. Sending her home, posting her job, and cutting off her scheduling access would lead a prudent person to believe she'd been fired. The Board also rebuked the brewery's claims of misconduct. It never investigated them during Spitzer's employment and raised them for the first time only after the charge was filed. That's classic pretext, said the Board.

I have three key lessons for employers to take away from this case.

1. When an employee says pay or breaks look wrong, or you have a safety or some other workplace issue, you have a compliance question to answer. Fix the problem if there is one. Explain it if there isn't. Firing the messenger turns the question into a federal labor charge or a lawsuit.

2. Nothing here required a union. Employees talking about overtime and breaks is protected concerted activity, and one employee's call to a state agency can be a logical outgrowth of that.

3. If a union is sniffing around your workers, retaliation is the best organizing pitch you can hand it. The organizer's whole argument is that speaking up gets you punished unless someone has your back. Fire the person who raised a concern and you've proven the point. At Notch 8, coworkers followed the whole thing in group texts, and one wrote that firing a whistleblower "sounds kinda illegal." Your workforce reads the same signals.

Employee complaints are free advice. Acting on them costs little, and punishing them costs far more. You don't want the most expensive thing on your menu to be retaliation.

Your noncompete is only as good as the document it lives in.

A proposed class action against Ashley Furniture alleges the company buried a noncompete in its handbook-style "Culture Guide" and didn't disclose the terms until after workers accepted their job offers.

This case raises an important question for employers to consider: can you enforce a noncompete that lives only in your handbook?

Probably not, and your own handbook is why.

Most handbooks say they are not a contract. We put that language there to defeat implied-contract claims. But it cuts both ways. If the handbook isn't a contract, it can't be the contract that restricts someone from working after they leave.

Courts agree. In Elite Cleaning Co. v. Capel, a noncompete appeared only in an employee manual, acknowledged on a short form. The court held that a handbook for an at-will employee is not a contract, and the employer offered nothing more. In Morgan v. Raymours Furniture Co., a handbook arbitration clause failed for the same reason. The court wouldn't let the employer disclaim a contract when convenient and then insist on one when it wasn't.

The lesson is that a separate, signed agreement changes the outcome. In ASI System Integration v. Mollenkopf, the handbook provision was unenforceable because of its disclaimer, but the employer survived dismissal because the employee had signed a separate stand-alone agreement.

There's a second problem. A handbook applies to everyone, so the noncompete does too: the receptionist, the stocker, and the sales director who holds your biggest accounts. Under the law of most states (including Ohio), a covenant must be no greater than needed to protect legitimate interests like trade secrets and customer goodwill. Most employees have none. In Elite Cleaning, for example, the court found the employer's interest weak as to an unskilled worker with no trade secrets. A blanket restriction invites the inference that the goal is controlling labor, not protecting the business.

Courts can narrow an overbroad covenant rather than void it, but that's a gamble, not a plan.

The fix is to use a stand-alone agreement, signed by the employee, tied to a legitimate interest and tailored to the role. Reserve it for employees who actually have something to protect, and use confidentiality and non-solicitation terms for everyone else. And keep it out of the handbook if you have hopes of enforcement.

If your noncompete is a paragraph on page 47 of a handbook that applies to every employee, you probably don't have one to enforce at all.

The EEOC pulled its criminal background check guidance. Title VII is still here.

Last week, the EEOC voted 2-1 to rescind its 2012 guidance on arrest and conviction records. If you're wondering whether criminal background checks are now a free-for-all for employers, I'm here to tell you they're not.

The EEOC's guidance was never the law. Title VII is. Disparate impact is written into the statute, and private plaintiffs don't need the EEOC's blessing to bring those claims. Disparate treatment (applying harsher screening standards to applicants because of race or national origin) is still illegal. And the Fair Credit Reporting Act, along with state and local fair-chance and ban-the-box laws, haven't gone anywhere.

What changes is agency enforcement. That's it. The reality is that the EEOC has largely moved away from disparate impact cases. Expect more right-to-sue letters and fewer EEOC lawsuits. But those claims won't disappear. They'll move into court, where you're the defendant.

Here's what the 2012 guidance said:

Arrests aren't convictions. An arrest alone doesn't prove anyone did anything wrong.

Convictions can justify an exclusion, but the offense needs to matter to the job. Embezzlement matters for a bookkeeper. It matters a lot less for a forklift operator.

Blanket bans are a red flag. Relevance depends on the nature and gravity of the offense, how much time has passed, and the nature of the job.

Individualized assessments matter. Give applicants an opportunity to explain their records before pulling an offer.

So what should employers do now that the EEOC has rescinded its guidance?

1. Keep your process. The guidance is gone, but its logic remains a sound way to defend against a Title VII disparate impact claim: job-related and consistent with business necessity.

2. Don't turn arrests into automatic rejections. Without more, an arrest record is a weak reason to reject an applicant.

3. Audit blanket exclusions. A "no felonies, ever" policy invites legal scrutiny unless a law requires it.

4. Apply your screens consistently. Inconsistent enforcement can become evidence of disparate treatment.

5. Document your reasons. If you reject someone because of a criminal record, write down the offense, how old it is, and why it matters to the job.

6. Follow the FCRA. When using third-party background reports, disclosure, authorization, and applicable pre-adverse and adverse action notice requirements still apply.

7. Check state and local law. Fair-chance rules vary by jurisdiction. Know yours before changing anything.

8. Train your hiring managers. Managers who improvise create risk. Give them a process and make sure they follow it.

Employers, the EEOC may have stepped back. Plaintiffs' lawyers haven't. Plan and act accordingly.

WIRTW #816 (the 'Claudette' edition)

"Now I know what tear gas smells like" is not what a parent wants to hear from a child who is living 4,500 miles away, separated by an ocean. But it's also the reality of being in France in October 2026.

On the latest episode of The Norah and Dad Show, Norah shares what it's really like on the ground in France, living through the current wave of protests as a student. Yes, there is tear gas, but she says she feels no less safe than she would at a school in the U.S. She also says the coverage fixates on the looting—which may not even be coming from the protesters—because that's what gets attention.

Norah also recounts her 20-hour bus ride to Luxembourg to see Courtney Barnett in concert and getting lost in the Paris Metro during her layover. She also tells the story of buying a guitar off Facebook Marketplace from a sweet widower in his 70s in Aix-en-Provence. Here is a preview of that story.