(A) No employer shall hinder or delay the director of commerce in the performance of the director's duties in the enforcement of sections 4111.01 to 4111.17 of the Revised Code, or refuse to admit the director to any place of employment, or fail to make, keep, and preserve any records as required under those sections, or falsify any of those records, or refuse to make them accessible to the director upon demand, or refuse to furnish them or any other information required for the proper enforcement of those sections to the director upon demand, or fail to post a summary of those sections or a copy of any applicable rules as required by section 4111.09 of the Revised Code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
(B) No employer shall discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has made any complaint to the employee's employer, or to the director, that the employee has not been paid wages in accordance with sections 4111.01 to 4111.17 of the Revised Code, or because the employee has made any complaint or is about to cause to be instituted any proceeding under or related to those sections, or because the employee has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding.
(C) No employer shall pay or agree to pay wages at a rate less than the rate applicable under sections 4111.01 to 4111.17 of the Revised Code. Each week or portion thereof for which the employer pays any employee less than the rate applicable under those sections constitutes a separate offense as to each employer.
(D) No employer shall otherwise violate sections 4111.01 to 4111.17 of the Revised Code, or any rule adopted thereunder. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5ד03 by failing to pay him overtime, and that it had violated R.C. 4111.13 by retaliating against him for making a complaint about its failure to pay him overtime.”
Taylor v. Volunteers of Am., 795 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “02(1) (protecting employee filing of claim for discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and *703 other factors); and R.C. 4111.13(B) (protecting employee filing of suit to enforce minimum-wage laws).”
White v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 837 N.E.2d 1275 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “, which lists the exact type of information an employer must maintain, including “[hjours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek.”
Eberline v. AJILON LLC, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ohio 2004). · cites it 3דEberline originally sued Ajilon in Lucas County, Ohio Common Pleas Court, alleging that Ajilon violated Ohio Revised Code Sections 4111.13 and 4113.15 by failing to pay time-and-a-half wages for hours worked over forty, and by failing to pay such wages on time.”
Hill v. Christ Hosp., 723 N.E.2d 581 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “02(1), or for bringing a lawsuit to compel compliance with Ohio’s minimum-wage laws, R.C. 4111.13. I would hold that Ohio has a clear public policy in favor of free access to the courts for redress of injuries, including actions by employees against their own employers.”
Wray v. City of Urbana, 440 N.E.2d 1382 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “R.C. 4111.13(C) and 4111.99(B). R.C. 4111.”
Hurd v. Blossom 24 Hour We Care Ctr., Inc., 2012 Ohio 3465 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Hurd cannot predicate her public policy claim pursuant to R.C. 4111.13 as adequate statutory remedies exist.”
McCoy v. RFS Charitable Found. (N.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 2ד03, (Count VI); retaliation for raising complaints regarding failure to make overtime payments, also under the Ohio Wage Act, R.C. § 4111.13 (B), (Count VII); and retaliation for reporting her supervisors’ allegedly criminal acts in violation of Ohio’s protections for…”
Baker v. Midwest First Star, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 2ד15 (Count Four); (v) unlawful retaliatory termination, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13 and the Ohio Constitution (Count Five); (vi) implied contract (Count Six); (vii) promissory estoppel (Count Seven); (viii) unjust enrichment/quantum meruit (Count Eight); and (ix)…”
Loew v. Regret Inc. d/b/a Sunburst Pools (S.D. Ohio 2022). · cites it 2ד§ 215 (a)(3); Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13(B). A claim for retaliation under both laws requires that: (1) the employee engaged in a protected activity under the FLSA; (2) the exercise of his rights was known by the employer; (3) thereafter, the employer took an adverse employment…”
Heckman v. Edison Commc'ns LLC (N.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 2דOn November 7, 2023, Plaintiff sued Defendants for retaliation under the FLSA and under Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13(B). (Id. at PgID.”
Powell v. Divine Status LLC (S.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 2דOhio Rev. Code § 4111.13(B). Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant retaliated against him by terminating Plaintiff after he brought his pay and job classification discrepancies to Defendant’s attention several times.”
White v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 837 N.E.2d 1275 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “, which lists the exact type of information an employer must maintain, including “[hjours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13(B) — 5 cases
Taylor v. Volunteers of Am., 795 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “02(1) (protecting employee filing of claim for discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and *703 other factors); and R.C. 4111.13(B) (protecting employee filing of suit to enforce minimum-wage laws).”
Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “03 by failing to pay him overtime, and that it had violated R.C. 4111.13 by retaliating against him for making a complaint about its failure to pay him overtime.”
Loew v. Regret Inc. d/b/a Sunburst Pools (S.D. Ohio 2022). “§ 215 (a)(3); Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13(B). A claim for retaliation under both laws requires that: (1) the employee engaged in a protected activity under the FLSA; (2) the exercise of his rights was known by the employer; (3) thereafter, the employer took an adverse employment…”
Heckman v. Edison Commc'ns LLC (N.D. Ohio 2024). “On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff sued Defendants for retaliation under the FLSA and under Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13(B). (Id. at PgID.”
Powell v. Divine Status LLC (S.D. Ohio 2024). “Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13(B). Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant retaliated against him by terminating Plaintiff after he brought his pay and job classification discrepancies to Defendant’s attention several times.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.13(C) — 2 cases
Wray v. City of Urbana, 440 N.E.2d 1382 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “R.C. 4111.13(C) and 4111.99(B). R.C. 4111.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.