Under Ohio law employers may not discriminate in their hiring decisions based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age or ancestry. The laws against discrimination do not intend to prohibit employers from obtaining information that is clearly job related and which cannot be used for discriminatory purposes. Furthermore, an employer may be required or permitted to elicit information pursuant to a bona fide affirmative action program. In general, however, the following inquiries are inappropriate.
- “I am interviewing a number of people for this position-may I take your picture so I can keep my applicants straight?” This inquiry is inappropriate as a photograph will reveal the race of the applicant.
- “Are you a child of the sixties?” This inquiry is inappropriate as it may reveal whether the applicant is over age forty and therefore “age protected.”
- “I’m an alum of Central High too! When did you graduate?” This inquiry will also reveal whether the applicant is over age forty and therefore age protected.
- “What kind of name is Johnson?” This inquiry may reveal national origin or ancestry and is therefore inappropriate.
To discuss these and other employment application issues, contact
Deborah P. Ecker at 614-229-4402.
Although the recent severe windstorm in Ohio caused millions of dollars of damage, there could be beneficial tax consequences for those who experienced these losses. In some circumstances, homeowners who suffered damage to their homes or loss of trees on their property
may be able to claim a casualty loss deduction on the 2008 income tax return.
The Internal Revenue Code permits the deduction for losses arising from “fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty”. “Other casualty” according to the IRS is the complete or partial destruction of property resulting from an identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected, and unusual in nature.
How to calculate a loss. The amount of the loss is the lesser of (1) the adjusted basis of the property (usually its cost) or (2) the difference in the property’s fair market value immediately before and after the casualty. The amount of the loss is reduced by any insurance recovery and the salvage value of any damaged property.
Expenses related to the casualty are not part of the loss. For example, the cost of temporary accommodations or other increases in living expenses caused by the casualty are not part of the loss. To determine the amount of a deductible loss, it is necessary to determine the fair market value of the damaged property immediately before and immediately after the casualty. An appraisal will be required and the appraisal must recognize the effects of any general market decline effecting undamaged as well as damaged property.
The cost of repairs may be acceptable as evidence of the loss of the value if the taxpayer can show that the repairs are necessary to restore the property to its condition immediately before the casualty, the amount spent for repairs is not excessive, the repairs do not improve the property and only repair the damage suffered and the value of the property after the repairs is not increased because of the repairs.
Example: In 1998 Alan purchased a residence for $90,000. In the same year he planted trees and other landscaping. In 2002 the land, building, trees and other landscaping were damaged by high winds. The fair market value of the property immediately before the casualty was $90,000. An appraisal determined that the value of the property immediately after the casualty was $70,400. Alan received $5,000 from his insurance company for the damages. The amount of the deduction is calculated as follows:
| Value immediately before the casualty | $90,000 |
| Less value immediately after casualty | -$70,400 |
| Value of property actually destroyed | $19,600 |
| Casualty loss | $$19,600 |
| Less insurance received | --$5,000 |
| Deduction allowable | $14,600 |
Other limitations. That is not the end of the story, however. Two other limitations affect the deduction for personal casualty losses. The first is a floor of $100. The personal casualty loss is deductible only to the extent it exceeds $100.
A more significant limitation is that personal casualty losses must exceed 10% of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the taxable year. The 10% AGI floor may significantly limit the ability to claim a casualty loss deduction.
If you would like to discuss your situation and whether you may be eligible to claim an income tax deduction for damaged suffered in the recent storms please contact your attorney at Luper Neidenthal & Logan.
DISCLAIMER: CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE. TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, WE INFORM YOU THAT, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE, ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL TAX LAW PROVISIONS OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.
Most savvy employers these days include an electronic communications policy in their handbook to put employees on notice that they should have an extremely limited expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using company computers, including internet and email. However, a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit raises the interesting issue of an employee’s right of privacy in text messages on a device provided by the employer.
In the case of Quon versus Arch Wireless Operating Company, Inc., the Court found that an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages sent on an employer provided pager.
The employer had a published policy on computer usage, internet and email which specifically advised that access to the internet and email system was not confidential and the system should not be used for personal or confidential communications. Employer specifically advised that internet sites were recorded and would be periodically reviewed and that users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources. When the employer distributed pagers to certain employees, these employees were verbally advised that they should consider the pager messages like email and eligible for auditing. The individuals using the pagers were allotted a certain number of characters, after which they were required to pay overage charges. The employer believed that the monthly number of characters allotted was sufficient for business purposes and any overages must be due to personal usage. The Plaintiff employee paid for overages several times and recalled his supervisor advising that if he paid the overage fee the text messages would not be audited. After the passage of some time, employer tired of collecting the overages from employees. Employer requested transcripts of the text messages on the pagers for auditing purposes to determine if the messages were work related, (requiring an increase in the number of characters permitted), or if the pagers were being used for personal matters. The audit revealed messages that were not work related and sexually explicit.
Employee filed suit, alleging, among other things, that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages. The Court found that the Plaintiff did not voluntarily permit the employer to review his text messages. The Court focused on the employer’s informal policy that text messages would not be audited if the employee paid the overages. This rendered Plaintiff’s expectation of privacy in the messages reasonable. It was significant that prior to the events that transpired in the case the employer did not audit any employee’s use of the pager for the eight months when the pagers had been in use.
The lesson to be learned is that employers must clearly limit the expectation of privacy afforded to employees in all employer provided devices. Btr 2B safe thN sry!
If not, then read no more because you probably don’t care! But if you have, then you’re among the select group who might be interested to know that the time for formulating, confirming and executing a Chapter 11 plan has been modified. These changes may be particularly relevant to hard-up retailers (R.I.P., Value City) as the holiday season is upon us. Learn more by contacting
Fred Luper at 614-229-4409.