Both the Ohio State Patrol and the Dayton Police Department will increase their patrols throughout the holiday. This heightened enforcement is designed to promote safe driving and deter impaired behavior.

If you plan to celebrate, ensure that you have a designated driver or utilize rideshare services. As in previous years, the Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office will sponsor the Arrive Safe Program, which offers free rideshare services to those celebrating the holiday. The program will run from 6 AM on Tuesday, March 17, until 6 AM on Wednesday, March 18. This initiative aims to ensure everyone can enjoy the day responsibly without the risk of impaired driving.   Drinking responsibly is key to a safe celebration. Keep your group safe and avoid the risks associated with impaired driving.

At Pickrel, Shaeffer, and Ebeling, we understand that even with the best intentions, situations can arise where you find yourself on the wrong side of the law.  With over 35 years of experience in handling OVI and impaired driving cases, our team is here to support you should you find yourself facing charges.

If you need assistance or have questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out. You can contact me directly at mbly@pselaw.com  or call our office at 937-223-1130.

Let’s celebrate St. Patrick’s Day safely and responsibly!

The post Celebrate Responsibly This St. Patrick’s Day appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

About Us: Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling is a well-established midwestern law firm specializing in litigation, real property, probate and estate planning, and labor and employment matters. We pride ourselves on providing exceptional legal services and fostering a collaborative and supportive workplace for our team.

Position Overview: We are seeking a dedicated and motivated Associate Attorney to join our litigation section. The ideal candidate will have 1 to 3 years of experience with an interest in actively engaging in courtroom proceedings and client interactions.

Key Responsibilities:

• Conduct legal research and prepare legal documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs.
• Represent clients in court and at hearings, advocating for their interests.
• Engage in regular client communication, providing updates and strategic advice.
• Collaborate with senior attorneys on case strategy and development.
• Participate in settlement negotiations and mediation sessions.
• Stay current on legal developments and changes in litigation practices.

Qualifications:

• Juris Doctor (JD) from an accredited law school.
• Admission to the bar in Ohio.
• 1 to 3 years of litigation experience preferred.
• Strong written and oral communication skills.
• Ability to manage multiple cases and deadlines effectively.
• A proactive approach to client service and case management.

What We Offer:

• Competitive salary and benefits package.
• Opportunities for professional development and growth.
• A supportive and collaborative work environment.
• Exposure to a diverse range of cases and clients.

How to Apply:

Interested candidates should submit their resume to L. Michael Bly at mbly@pselaw.com with “Associate Attorney Application” in the subject line.

The post Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling Is Hiring an Associate Attorney in Dayton, Ohio appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

The holidays offer a moment to pause, appreciate the people who make our work meaningful, and look ahead to new opportunities. Whether you are planning for your business, protecting your family, or preparing for the future, we remain committed to providing guidance that brings clarity and peace of mind.

From our entire firm to you and yours, may the season bring comfort, connection, and hope for a bright year ahead.

The post Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling wishes you a Happy Holiday Season and a Prosperous New Year appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Kaylee has been closely following this legislation and its impact on Ohio schools, educators, and families. In the interview, she provided crucial legal context about what the law requires, how schools must respond, and what questions remain for districts navigating compliance.

This feature builds on Kaylee’s growing reputation as a trusted legal resource in the Dayton region. Earlier this year, she was recognized by the Dayton Business Journal as a 2025 Rising Star in Law, an honor that highlights her leadership, commitment to clients, and dedication to the community.

At PSE, we are proud of Kaylee’s contributions both inside and outside the courtroom. Her insight on the Parents’ Bill of Rights underscores our firm’s commitment to guiding clients through evolving legal landscapes with clarity and confidence.

You can read the full Spectrum News article here: Districts implementing the Parents’ Bill of Rights
If you have questions about how this law may affect your school district, organization, or family, please get in touch with Kaylee R. Price at kprice@pselaw.com or 937-223-1130.

The post PSE Attorney Kaylee R. Price Featured in Coverage of Ohio’s “Parents’ Bill of Rights” appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Michael Sandner has been recognized for his exceptional work in Business Litigation and Construction Law. A shareholder and the firm’s President, Mike brings decades of experience guiding clients through complex commercial and construction disputes with strategic insight and practical solutions.

John Clough has been honored in the areas of Estate Planning and Tax Law. Known for his meticulous approach and dedication to protecting client assets, John continues to help individuals and families navigate estate and tax matters with confidence and clarity.

This recognition reflects our firm’s continued commitment to delivering legal excellence across a diverse range of practice areas. Congratulations to Mike and John on this well-deserved honor!

The post Two PSE Attorneys Named to 2025 Ohio Leading Lawyers List appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

The latest edition of the Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Newsletter is packed with timely legal updates, firm accomplishments, and community engagement stories. Highlights include Alan Schaeffer’s celebration of 50 years in legal practice, Michael Sandner’s recognition as a 2025 AVVO Top Rated Lawyer, and Kaylee Price being honored as a Rising Star in Law.

Readers will also find expert legal insights on topics such as:

• New FMLA protections and PTO policies amid workers’ comp claims
• Ohio’s evolving cemetery and burial laws
• Elder care planning and long-term care insurance strategies
• Trademark fee increases for 2025
• PCS (Post-Concussion Syndrome) awareness and legal recourse
• The impact of Ohio’s newly signed “Parents’ Bill of Rights.”

With firm news, legal guidance, and public safety commentary, including alarming trends in distracted driving and OVI violations, this issue is a must-read for clients and community partners alike.

Download the Newsletter Here!

The post Focus Newsletter: Issue 1, 2025 appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

As of this morning, FinCEN has acknowledged that all filings remain voluntary. The status of the reporting requirement may continue to change rapidly. The best practice may be to file during the voluntary period to avoid the risk of stiff penalties for failure to file a timely BOI Report.

If you file during this voluntary period, BOI Reports are filed directly with FinCEN at https://boiefiling.fincen.gov/fileboir.

Should you have questions regarding the CTA or need assistance determining who should be included in a BOI Report, please contact one of the following attorneys in our Business Department:  Katie Wahl, Jerry McDonald, Dave Montgomery, or Marcella McHenry at 937.223.1130 or through our website at pselaw.com.

The post Supreme Court Lifts One Nationwide Injunction Against the CTA – Reporting Continues to be Voluntary: Update 5 appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

In an amicus brief filed Wednesday, the EEOC said an Ohio district court was wrong to toss Jeff Smith’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act suit against the city of Union because forcing Smith to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam and then slow-walking his reinstatement qualified as an adverse employment action. The agency said the U.S. Supreme Court held in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White that an employer’s conduct constitutes retaliation if it could discourage a worker from reporting bias.

“A reasonable jury could readily conclude that, in the circumstances Smith faced, requiring a fitness-for-duty exam was materially adverse,” the EEOC wrote. “In ordering the exam, the city made clear that Smith’s career was in jeopardy, informing him that he would ‘not be permitted to return to work at this time’ if he failed the exam.”

According to Smith’s April 2022 suit, the city accused him of violating several Police Department policies during events on May 30 and May 31, 2020, such as failing to wear his seat belt, participating in an unjustified pursuit and improperly handling evidence, among other transgressions. Smith said that even though younger officers weren’t disciplined for similar conduct, he was fired in August 2020, at 51 years old.

After his union filed a grievance, an arbitrator determined that Smith should be reinstated and his termination should be converted to a three-day suspension. However, Smith said the Police Department forced him to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination so his return would be delayed and he would miss a promotion opportunity, in what he said was retaliation for filing discrimination charges with the EEOC and Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

U.S. District Judge Michael J. Newman granted summary judgment to the city in May, saying the Police Department was justified in requiring that Smith be evaluated because he’d admitted that stress caused his prior mistakes and he hadn’t been a police officer in nearly a year when he was reinstated. The court also found that Smith hadn’t identified a younger employee who was excused from a fitness-for-duty exam under similar circumstances, and a reasonable jury couldn’t conclude that the assessment was a materially adverse action.

But the EEOC argued Wednesday, that even if the Police Department had legitimate reasons for ordering the fitness exam, that’s irrelevant in a consideration whether it might have dissuaded someone from complaining about discrimination.

According to the amicus brief, even after Smith completed the assessment, the city inexplicably prolonged his leave, preventing Smith from being considered for promotions that were instead given to younger officers and causing him to miss out on a raise when the city finalized a three-year collective bargaining agreement.

The agency also asserted that the district court erred in stating that the relevant retaliation standard was whether an action “would dissuade” a reasonable worker when Burlington Northern actually asks whether the conduct “could” or “might” discourage someone from speaking out against bias.

“By using ‘could’ rather than ‘would’ in defining materially adverse actions, the Supreme Court meant to capture actions that have even the potential to dissuade a reasonable worker, not only those actions that are likely or certain to do so,” the EEOC wrote. “This court should take this opportunity to clarify that ‘could’ or ‘might,’ rather than ‘would,’ is the correct standard.”

Matthew Stokely, who is representing Smith, told Law360 that the EEOC “masterfully articulates the legal issues involved in litigating unlawful retaliation claims involving employers requiring fitness-for-duty exams after the employee has engaged in protected activity.”

“The brief contains a deep analysis of federal case law and demonstrates the issues of fact that come into play in evaluating summary judgment motions,” Stokely said.

Representatives of the EEOC and Union did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Article Written By: Patrick Hoff

Representation

The EEOC is represented in-house by Steven Winkelman.

Smith is represented by Matthew D. Stokely of Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling Co. LPA.

The police department is represented by Beverly A. Meyer, Arthur P. Schoulties and Benjamin J. Reeb of Bricker Graydon LLP.

The post Cop’s Fitness Exam May Qualify As Retaliation, Sixth Circuit appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

A man in Ohio passes away, owning real estate in Montgomery County. He had assured his daughter, an only child, that he had made and signed a TOD – Transfer on Death Designation – putting the house into her name at his passing.

The daughter goes through the motions of selling the property. The market is hot, and her Real Estate Agent quickly finds a buyer. They settle on a closing date. Soon, however, the daughter is contacted by the bank that holds dad’s mortgage with a foreclosure date. There is to be a sheriff’s sale of the house.

How did this happen? It turns out that dad had never bothered to have his signature on that “DIY” TOD notarized a technical requirement in the State of Ohio. Therefore, The TOD is invalid; the daughter never actually inherited the home through the TOD, and the Real Estate Agent never bothered to check who held the title! When she takes the TOD to the county to be recorded, they point out the missing Notary stamp and turn her away. With the foreclosure and the closing dates both on the horizon and within days of each other, the daughter desperately contacts an attorney.

What can be done? Well, lots of things, but nothing as cheap or easy as a properly executed Estate Plan. The family now faces hiring an attorney and opening a Probate Estate to retrieve the funds left over after the sheriff’s sale occurs.

How can you avoid this? If you want to guarantee your family doesn’t meet with undue difficulty after your passing, you really need to seek the advice of an Estate Planning Attorney – to create OR double-check your Estate Plan – and provide your loved ones with true peace of mind.

The attorneys at PSE can help. Don’t hesitate to contact us at pse@pselaw.com or call 937.223.1130.

The post Worst Case Scenario – TOD appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.