Committee hears wide testimony on HB 225 to phase out subminimum wages for people with disabilities

House Bill 225 drew extended testimony from self‑advocates, parents, disability service providers and county officials on both sides of a proposal to phase out subminimum wages authorized under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Proponents framed HB 225 as a civil‑rights and economic opportunity measure; opponents warned of unintended consequences for medically fragile individuals and for provider business models that rely on piece‑rate contracts.

Why it matters

Supporters said the bill would ensure “fair pay for people with disabilities” and expand competitive integrated employment options. Julie Taylor, senior consultant with Griffin Hammis Associates, urged the committee to adopt the change, saying, “It's a terrible public policy to say to one group of people that because of the way you are… that because of this, we are gonna pay you below minimum wage.” Adam Herman, representing the Ohio Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities, told lawmakers the bill’s five‑year transition period and state guidance from DODD and OOD were designed to help providers and families plan for change.

Proponents’ testimony and examples

- Sue Hetrick and her son Micah described Micah’s paid work in the community and urged the committee to allow people with disabilities the dignity of a fair wage; Hetrick said Micah earns $13.75 an hour at his current job and that, with the right supports, “People with disabilities should not be denied the dignity of work.”

- Julie Taylor and other workforce consultants described evidence‑based supported and customized employment strategies (for example IPS and customized employment) and participation in multi‑state transition projects. Justin Blomhorst of Capabilities (a large OOD provider) and Adam Herman for the Ohio Association of County Boards said providers can and have transitioned thousands of people out of subminimum wage settings, and several county boards have already supported a planned phase‑out.

State data and process notes offered by proponents

Jan Daugherty cited Department of Developmental Disabilities (DODD) 2023 data during testimony: “3,384 individuals earn subminimum wage,” she said, and provided a breakdown of wage bands reported to the department. She also said DOL data showed 41 14(c) certificates in Ohio. County boards’ representatives told the committee that the number of Ohioans working under 14(c) has fallen substantially from about 15,000 in 2011 to under 3,000 today, a decline county boards cited as evidence that transitions are underway.

Opponents’ testimony and concerns

Opponents and some providers said eliminating subminimum wages could reduce hours, close sheltered workshops, or push people into day programs that lack paid work. Joe Pacquia (Masco Inc., nonprofit adult services) and others argued that some clients are medically fragile or unable to meet private‑sector productivity expectations and that customers would choose commercial vendors instead of paying higher contract rates. Philip Miller and others provided cost estimates for making organizations whole if piece‑rate payments were converted to hourly minimum‑wage equivalents; Miller quoted county‑level annual shortfalls and a statewide estimate: “In our Portage County operation, the difference…would cost us $728,000 a year. In our Mahoning County operation, $1,173,000, and in our Trumbull operation, $1,687,000… statewide…$28,108,000,” he said.

Discussion vs. decision

Discussion: the hearing included extensive direct testimony from self‑advocates (including people who work for pay), family members, nonprofit and county board representatives, and providers. Committee members asked for data and follow‑up materials; several attendees offered to provide state comparisons and studies of other states that phased out 14(c).

Decision: the transcript records a third hearing with proponent and opponent testimony; no committee vote on HB 225 is recorded in the provided transcript.

What to watch next

Witnesses — both supporters and opponents — asked for continued stakeholder meetings with DODD, OOD, and providers to identify supports, bridge funding and technical assistance during the five‑year transition. Committee members requested data on other states’ transition outcomes and employment results.

Ending

The committee concluded the third hearing after hearing multiple hours of testimony. The transcript does not show a committee vote on HB 225 during this session.