Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
CONTENTS: |
To establish
specified employment rights for public and private
sector employees in the uniformed services |
STATE FUND |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
General Revenue Fund |
|||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|
Expenditures |
-0- |
Potential increase for
compensation in any cases in which the plaintiff receives favorable judgment |
Potential increase for
compensation in any cases in which the plaintiff receives favorable judgment |
Court of Claims |
|||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
Potential increase in
court costs due to increased caseloads |
Potential increase in
court costs due to increased caseloads |
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2008 is July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008.
·
The
bill allows the court to award to a plaintiff, who prevails in any action or
proceeding to enforce such a reinstatement or reemployment right, reasonable
attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses.
·
The
bill codifies the provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) into state law. In instances where the state would be the defendant in any cases,
the court of claims would have original jurisdiction. This could result in a potential increase in court costs for any
increase in caseload. The bill also
prohibits the court from requiring the plaintiff to reimburse the state for any
attorney's fees should the plaintiff not receive favorable judgment in the
case.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
Counties |
||||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|
Expenditures |
(1) Potential increase for
cases in which the plaintiff receives favorable judgment; (2) Potential
increase in court costs due to increased caseloads |
(1) Potential increase for
cases in which the plaintiff receives favorable judgment; (2) Potential
increase in court costs due to increased caseloads |
(1) Potential increase for
cases in which the plaintiff receives favorable judgment; (2) Potential
increase in court costs due to increased caseloads |
|
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
The
bill allows the court to award to a plaintiff, who prevails in any action or
proceeding to enforce such a reinstatement or reemployment right, reasonable
attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses.
·
The
bill codifies the provisions of USERRA into state law. Under the bill, county courts of common
pleas have jurisdiction for such cases unless the defendant is the state. This could result in a potential increase in
court costs for any increase in caseload.
|
Background
The bill applies the
provisions of the Federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act of 1994 (USERRA) into state law.
Section 4301 of USERRA states that the Act's purpose is to
"encourage noncareer service in the uniformed services by eliminating or
minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment that can result
from such service, to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons
performing services in the uniformed services as well as to their employers,
their fellow employees, and their communities, by providing for the prompt
reemployment of such persons upon their completion of service, and to prohibit
discrimination against persons because of their service in the uniformed
services."
Changes in the bill
The application of USERRA to
state law could allow individuals to seek remedy in either a court of common
pleas or the court of claims.
Currently, any such cases would be heard in federal court. In instances where the state is the
defendant, the court of claims would have jurisdiction. Courts of common pleas have jurisdiction in
other cases. Should a plaintiff in such
a case receive favorable judgment, the bill allows the court to award to the
plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation
expenses. Additionally, the bill also
prohibits the court from requiring the plaintiff to reimburse the state for any
attorney's fees should the plaintiff not receive favorable judgment in the
case. Additionally, the bill requires
all such cases to be given priority on a court's docket.
Fiscal impact
The
remedies contained in the bill are no different than what currently exist in
USERRA. However, currently, the process
for hearing such cases in federal court is lengthy due to the volume of cases
of federal court dockets. Because of
this, some individuals opt not to pursue a case. Therefore, the bill could potentially increase the likelihood
that such a case will be heard. If so,
there could be several resulting costs.
First, there could be an increase in costs to both the court of claims
and to county courts of common pleas due to both increased caseloads, and any
administrative costs for giving such cases priority on the courts'
dockets. Secondly, in cases involving
state or county employees, the involved governmental entity could be required
to pay the remedies specified above for any cases in which favorable judgment
is found for the plaintiff. With
respect to the state, the bill prohibits the court of claims from requiring the
plaintiff to pay attorney's fees when favorable judgment is not found. It is not known how many additional cases
could result from the bill, but given the combination of potential fiscal
effects, it would be reasonable to assume that local governments might incur
new costs.
LSC fiscal staff: Terry Steele, Budget Analyst