Haight v. Minchak (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.
{¶ 1} In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the definition of the term “employee” set forth in R.C. 4111.14(B)(1) clearly conflicts with the definition of the same term set forth in the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a. Because it does not, we hold that R.C. 4111.14(B)(1) is constitutional.
Case Background
{¶ 2} This is a case involving the applicability of Ohio’s minimum-wage law. Appellees, John Haight and Christopher Pence, were employed as sales representatives by the Cheap Escape Company, which was owned by appellants, Robert and Joan Minchak. Cheap Escape published…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State ex rel. Jackman v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga CountyOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- Desenco, Inc. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- DiCenzo v. A-Best Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
- City of University Heights v. O'LearyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Haight v. Cheap Escape Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. GreviousOhio Supreme Court · 2022
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. HustedOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
- Brandt v. PompaOhio Supreme Court · 2022
- Haight v. Minchak (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Roesel v. DAM Management LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.