Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Employment Wage Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ohio sponsors propose five-year phase-out of subminimum wages for people with disabilities
Summary
Representatives introduced House Bill 225 to phase out subminimum wages tied to federal Section 14(c) certificates over five years, require transition plans from employers holding certificates, expand and empower an employment-first task force, and offer a 15% nonrefundable tax credit to businesses buying goods/services from certified nonprofits.
House Bill 225 would phase out the practice of paying certain people with disabilities less than minimum wage under federal Fair Labor Standards Act Section 14(c) by establishing a five-year transition to competitive, integrated employment, sponsors told the House Commerce and Labor Committee.
Sponsor testimony described the bill as a dignity-and-opportunity measure that would require employers holding subminimum-wage certificates to submit transition plans within 15 months and receive direct support from the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities and Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD). Sponsors said the state would gather, monitor and publicly report progress during the five‑year period.
The bill would strengthen the Employment First task force, prioritize community-based integrated employment, and provide a nonrefundable 15% tax credit for businesses or individuals who purchase goods or services from certified nonprofits that employ people with disabilities in integrated settings and offer health benefits, sponsors said.
Sponsors cited national momentum, saying 16 states have initiated phase-outs of 14(c) use and that states including Texas and Washington have ended active 14(c) certificates. They also cited a U.S. District Court decision in the Northern District of Ohio awarding back pay to three individuals as an example of federal enforcement and cited the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2016 finding that disability alone does not justify lower wages.
Committee members asked detailed questions about job protections and litigation risk. Representative Brent pressed whether workers could be fired in an at‑will employment state if employers do not want to pay higher wages; sponsors responded that the five‑year transition provides time to design supports, and pointed to possible incentives such as the tax credit and other measures to prevent job loss. Members also asked about past legal challenges; sponsors said they would provide case materials and noted the bill’s emphasis on a paced transition and supports for employers and workers.
Representatives Jerrells and Young said they had consulted widely with providers, families, employer groups and county boards of developmental disabilities and described planned community and employer supports during the phase-out. They invited further expert testimony and public comment as the bill moves through committee.
