OH · state guide

Ohio background screening law

How the courts here are organized

Ohio is a county state for trial courts, and the county is the unit a search has to be built around. R.C. 2301.01 provides: "There shall be a court of common pleas in each county held by one or more judges, each of whom has been admitted to practice as an attorney at law in this state for at least one year preceding the judge's appointment or commencement of the judge's term, resides in the county, is elected by the electors therein". There are 88 counties, so there are 88 courts of common pleas, and the Supreme Court of Ohio's own "Find Ohio Trial Courts & Local Rules" directory lists them county by county, each with its own local rules. Above them sit 12 courts of appeals districts under R.C. 2501.01. The court of common pleas is the felony court and the court of general civil jurisdiction, and it is where a felony conviction is recorded.

Municipal courts are statutory and their number is set by amendment rather than by the number of cities. R.C. 1901.01(A) opens "There is hereby established a municipal court in each of the following municipal corporations:" and then names more than a hundred of them, running alphabetically from Akron to Zanesville. The same section then adds courts by county rather than by city: division (B) a municipal court within Clermont county, division (C) one within Columbiana county, division (D) one within Erie county, and division (G) one within Montgomery county with a long list of excluded municipal corporations. Division (E) records that the Cuyahoga Falls municipal court was to remain in existence until 31 December 2008 and be replaced by the Stow municipal court on 1 January 2009, and division (F) establishes the Stow court. The section has been amended repeatedly, which is why this page states the structure and not a total count.

County courts are the residual tier, and their jurisdiction tells you why they matter to a screening file. R.C. 1907.01 creates county courts only in territory that is not within the jurisdiction of a municipal court, so a county court is what exists in the unincorporated and small-municipality parts of a county that no municipal court covers. Their criminal jurisdiction is broad rather than residual: R.C. 1907.02 gives a county court jurisdiction over "all misdemeanor cases" and over felony preliminary hearings, which means a misdemeanor disposition in a rural part of the state is a county court record and not a common pleas record.

The fourth tier is the one that surprises people, and it is a real one. R.C. 1905.01 lets a mayor hear cases, and R.C. 1905.033 requires mayor's courts to register annually with the Supreme Court, which the court's own reporting page states as annual registration plus quarterly caseload reporting. The Supreme Court's 2019 summary describes the population rule and the jurisdiction in its own words: "Chapter 1905 of the Ohio Revised Code permits mayors of municipal corporations populated by more than 200 people that are generally not the site of a municipal court to conduct mayor’s court", and "Mayor’s courts, which are not courts of record, hear only cases involving violations of local ordinances and state traffic laws. Those convicted in a mayor’s court may appeal their conviction to the municipal or county court having jurisdiction within the municipal corporation. Ohio law does not require mayors hearing cases to be attorneys."

Those four tiers are why an Ohio search cannot be scoped to a single source, and the Supreme Court says so structurally rather than in words. Its trial-court directory is organized by county and then by court, and it publishes local rules court by court, so there is no one place to look. Remote access to court records is discretionary: Sup.R. 11.12(A) provides that "A court or clerk of court may offer remote access to a court record", not that it must, while Sup.R. 11.10 states that "Court records are presumed open to public access" and Sup.R. 11.11(A) requires a court or clerk to make a record available by direct access and to respond to a request "within a reasonable amount of time". The presumption is real and it runs to the courthouse, not to a statewide portal.

The repository gap is the misdemeanor, and it is the single most useful thing to know about an Ohio state check. R.C. 109.57(A)(1) directs the superintendent to file records of "all persons who have been convicted of committing within this state a felony, any crime constituting a misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony on subsequent offenses, or any misdemeanor described in division (A)(1)(a), (A)(4)(a), or (A)(6)(a) of section 109.572 of the Revised Code". Read plainly, that is felonies, the offenses that escalate from misdemeanor to felony on repetition, and a named set of misdemeanors defined by reference to lists in R.C. 109.572 that are themselves long enumerations of serious offenses. A first-degree misdemeanor that falls outside those lists is not something the bureau is directed to hold. A state-only check therefore is not a substitute for a court search in Ohio, and the reason is in the repository section rather than in policy.

The second gap is that the repository is closed by design and open by rule. R.C. 109.57(D)(1)(a) provides that information and materials furnished to the superintendent under division (A) are not public records under R.C. 149.43. Access beyond that runs through R.C. 109.57(E)(1), which directs the attorney general to "adopt rules, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code and subject to division (E)(2) of this section, setting forth the procedure by which a person may receive or release information gathered by the superintendent pursuant to division (A) of this section". The same division fixes a fee and provides that "If a temporary employment service submits a request for a determination of whether a person the service plans to refer to an employment position has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense listed or described in division (A)(1), (2), or (3) of section 109.572 of the Revised Code, the request shall be treated as a single request and only one fee shall be charged." That sentence is the closest the statute comes to naming a commercial intermediary, and it names a temporary employment service rather than a consumer reporting agency. The rules themselves were not read for this page and are named in `pending`.

The third gap is what the repository will and will not say about an arrest that led nowhere, and it is drafted as a list of three situations. R.C. 109.57(E)(2) confines a rule under (E)(1) to "the release of information gathered pursuant to division (A) of this section that relates to the conviction of a person, or a person's plea of guilty to, a criminal offense or to the arrest of a person as provided in division (E)(3)". Division (E)(3) then permits release of non-conviction arrest information only where "The arrest was made outside of this state", or "A criminal action resulting from the arrest is pending, and the superintendent confirms that the criminal action has not been resolved at the time the criminal records check is performed", or "The bureau cannot reasonably determine whether a criminal action resulting from the arrest is pending, and not more than one year has elapsed since the date of the arrest". The third limb is a one-year window measured from the arrest, and it is the only limb that has nothing to do with an out-of-state arrest or a pending case.

The fourth gap is that the records the repository does release are released against a statutory authorization, not against a request. R.C. 109.572(B)(1) applies the sealed-records inclusion only "if the criminal records check was requested under section 113.041, 121.08, 124.74, 173.27, 173.38, 173.381, 718.131, 928.03, 1121.23, 1315.141, 1321.37, 1321.53, 1733.47, 1761.26, 2151.86, 3301.32, 3301.541, 3319.39, 3740.11, 3712.09, 3721.121, 3772.07, 3775.03, 3796.12, 3796.13, 4729.071, 4729.53, 4729.90, 4729.92, 4749.03, 4749.06, 4763.05, 4764.07, 4768.06, 5103.053, 5104.013, 5164.34, 5164.341, 5164.342, 5123.081, 5123.169, or 5153.111 of the Revised Code". R.C. 109.57(F) and (G) then name the employer classes that may request directly, which are school boards, developmental disabilities providers, child care and head start operators, children services agencies, home health and hospice and long-term care providers, and the like. A general private employer is not among them, and the sections in the list that touch private business are licensing and regulated-industry sections rather than an employment gateway.

The fifth gap is the mayor's court, because it is a court that decides cases and is not a court of record. The Supreme Court's summary describes the jurisdiction and the appeal in one pass: those "convicted in a mayor’s court may appeal their conviction to the municipal or county court having jurisdiction within the municipal corporation", and "Ohio law does not require mayors hearing cases to be attorneys." Registration and quarterly reporting under R.C. 1905.033 came in from 1 January 2004 and the Supreme Court adopted procedural and education rules for mayors with the General Assembly's permission, so the tier is supervised rather than unsupervised. What it is not is a tier whose dispositions are captured in the court of record system, and a search built on common pleas and municipal court indices does not obviously reach it.

The routing consequence is that an Ohio answer has to say which of four things produced it. A bureau response is a fingerprint-supported record limited to felonies, escalating offenses and named misdemeanors, released against a statutory authorization, silent on ordinary misdemeanors, and in the sealed-record case deliberately inclusive. A common pleas search is a county search. A municipal or county court search is a court-level search whose coverage depends on which court has territorial jurisdiction over the address. And a mayor's court disposition is a fourth thing again, held by a court that is not a court of record. Ohio is the state where the answer to "did you search Ohio" has to be a list.

The federal baseline

Federal law sets the floor here as it does everywhere. It is at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., it binds the agency and the employer separately, and it does not vary by state. The FCRA article covers it section by section, including the seven-year limits, the salary threshold and the adverse action sequence, so that this page does not restate any of it.

What follows is only the overlay: what Ohio adds on top of that floor, and where it departs from it.

What Ohio law adds

Cities that go further than the state

• Columbus. Chapter 2335 of the Columbus City Codes is titled "PROHIBITED SALARY HISTORY INQUIRY AND USE; PAY TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS" and it reaches private employers at fifteen employees. "Employer" is defined at 2335.01(B) as an entity "that employs fifteen (15) or more persons on a qualifying wage, commission, or other compensation basis within the City of Columbus", excluding any unit of local, state or federal government except the City of Columbus, and expressly including "job placement and referral agencies and other employment agencies when such agencies operate on behalf of an entity that otherwise meets the definition". Division 2335.03(A) makes it unlawful to inquire about an applicant's salary history, to screen applicants on current or prior wages, benefits, other compensation or salary histories "including requiring that an applicant's prior wages, benefits, other compensation or salary history satisfy minimum or maximum criteria", to rely solely on salary history in deciding whether to offer employment or in setting compensation, and to "Refuse to hire or otherwise disfavor, injure, or retaliate against an applicant for not disclosing salary history to an employer". Division (C) adds a posting duty: "Employers shall provide a reasonable salary range or scale for potential employment in employment postings", with reasonableness measured against six listed factors. Two provisions matter to a screening workflow. Division (D)(4) permits "Any attempt by an employer to verify an applicant's disclosure of non-salary related information or conduct a background check", provided that if the check discloses salary history "such disclosure shall not be solely relied upon for purposes of determining the salary, benefits, or other compensation of such applicant during the hiring process, including the negotiation of a contract;" Division (D)(3) excludes "A voluntary and unprompted disclosure of salary history information by an Applicant". Complaints run through the procedure at Columbus City Code 2331.05, and the penalty provision is 2335.05. The chapter was enacted by Ordinance No. 0709-2023 on 13 March 2023 and amended by Ordinance No. 2898-2025 on 3 November 2025, and an editor's note to the 2025 ordinance states "that subsection 2335.03(c) shall not be enforced by the city until January 1, 2027." So the salary-history prohibitions are in force and the posting requirement is deferred. Columbus City Code § 2335.01 · Columbus City Code § 2335.03 · Columbus City Code § 2331.05

Reporting limits at a glance

Every figure below is against Ohio law. Where a row says “federal only”, the state has set nothing and 15 U.S.C. §1681c governs.

Adverse action here

The federal sequence applies unchanged: pre-adverse action notice with a copy of the report and the summary of rights, a reasonable opportunity to dispute, then the adverse action notice with the agency's details and a dispute route. The FCRA article sets it out in full. Ohio adds no state pre-request notice, no state pre-adverse action step and no state adverse action notice for a criminal-history report, because chapters 4112 and 4113 contain no consumer-reporting provision at all.

One Ohio rule changes what a letter may rely on, and it is a question rule rather than a notice rule. R.C. 2953.34(L)(1) provides that a person "may not be questioned with respect to any record that has been sealed or expunged pursuant to section 2953.33 of the Revised Code", and it goes further than a bar on the question: the person "may respond as if the arrest underlying the case to which the sealed official records pertain and all other proceedings in that case did not occur, and the person whose official record was sealed shall not be subject to any adverse action because of the arrest, the proceedings, or the person's response." An adverse action taken because a candidate answered a prohibited question by denying a sealed non-conviction is an adverse action the division addresses by name.

A sealed conviction is a different case and the letter should say so. R.C. 2953.34(N)(2)(a) permits the question "unless the question bears a direct and substantial relationship to the position for which the person is being considered", so a decision that rests on a sealed conviction has to be able to state the relationship between the question asked and the position. Where the record was expunged under R.C. 2953.35 rather than sealed, R.C. 2953.34(N)(2)(c) removes the question entirely, and reliance on an expunged conviction in a decision is reliance on a record the section says may not be asked about.

The repository's retention rule is the exposure a candidate does not expect, and it should be handled before the letter rather than after. R.C. 2953.32(D)(5) requires the bureau to keep an expunged conviction record "for the limited purpose of determining an individual's qualification or disqualification for employment in law enforcement" and provides that the bureau "shall not be compelled by the court to destroy, delete, or erase those records so that the records are permanently irretrievable". Where a report carries a conviction the candidate maintains was expunged, the exception is in the statute and the first step is to establish whether the check was a statutory check under R.C. 109.572(B)(1), which is the route that reports sealed records, and whether the position falls within the law-enforcement purpose the retention rule names.

Cannabis letters are the exception, and Ohio gives the employer a defense rather than a duty. R.C. 3796.28(A)(5) provides that nothing in the chapter "Permits a person to commence a cause of action against an employer for refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, discriminating, retaliating, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment related to marijuana", and division (C) provides that a discharge, refusal to hire or discrimination because of marijuana use is not a violation of R.C. 4112.02(A), (D) or (E) where the use violates the employer's drug-free workplace policy, zero-tolerance policy, or other formal program or policy regulating marijuana use. The defense depends on the policy existing and being in writing, so the instrument that supports the letter is the policy and not the statute.

The public-sector rule adds one drafting consequence and no notice duty. R.C. 9.73(B) bars the question on the application form for a state agency or a political subdivision, and division (C) preserves a statement notifying an applicant of a statutory disqualification. An Ohio public employer that uses a form with a criminal-history question, and relies on division (C), has to be able to point to the provision of the Revised Code or federal law that disqualifies the individual, because the division authorizes a notice of a statutory bar and not a general question.

Screening in Ohio: what your process needs

• Find out which section sealed the record before deciding whether the question may be asked. R.C. 2953.34(L)(1) covers records sealed under R.C. 2953.33, which is the non-conviction section, and makes them unaskable. R.C. 2953.34(N)(2)(c) covers convictions expunged under R.C. 2953.35, which are also unaskable. R.C. 2953.34(N)(2)(a) covers sealed convictions, which are askable where the question bears a direct and substantial relationship to the position. The three outcomes do not follow from the word "sealed".
• Stop citing R.C. 2953.33(B)(1) for the non-conviction restriction. S.B. 288 of the 134th General Assembly, effective 4 April 2023, renumbered the chapter: the non-conviction section is now R.C. 2953.33, the effect section is R.C. 2953.34, the provision our file quoted as 2953.33(B)(1) is now R.C. 2953.34(N)(2)(a), former (B)(2) is now (N)(2)(c), and former (A) is now (N)(1) with its cross-reference updated from former 2953.37 to current 2953.35.
• Read R.C. 2953.34(N)(2)(b) before treating a certificate of qualification for employment as a clean slate. In an application for a certificate under R.C. 2953.25, a person "may be questioned only with respect to convictions not sealed and bail forfeitures not sealed", which is a wider questioning rule than the one that applies to an ordinary application for employment.
• Do not treat a BCI check as an Ohio criminal history for a private employer. R.C. 109.57(A)(1) directs the bureau to hold felonies, offenses that escalate from misdemeanor to felony, and the misdemeanors named in R.C. 109.572(A)(1)(a), (A)(4)(a) and (A)(6)(a). An ordinary misdemeanor outside those lists is not a record the bureau is directed to hold, and R.C. 109.57(F) and (G) name the employer classes that may request directly without including a general private employer.
• Establish the statutory authority for any Ohio check you order, because R.C. 109.572(B)(1) reports sealed records only where the check was requested under one of the enumerated sections. The list includes the school, child care, developmental disabilities, long-term care, financial institution, insurance, real estate, nursing and cannabis licensing sections, and it includes R.C. 3796.12 and R.C. 3796.13. A check ordered outside the list is a different product with a different content.
• Check the cannabis-license route separately if you screen for a licensed Ohio cannabis operator. R.C. 3796.13(A) requires a person seeking employment with a license holder to comply with R.C. 4776.01 to 4776.04 and prohibits employment unless the resulting criminal records check shows no disqualifying offense, which means the candidate obtains the check on themselves under the chapter 4776 procedure. Division (B) permits provisional employment for not longer than three months, renewable once, where the person submits evidence of compliance.
• Build the court search county by county for common pleas, and court by court for municipal and county courts. R.C. 2301.01 puts a court of common pleas in each of the 88 counties and the Supreme Court's trial-court directory is organized on that basis with local rules published court by court. There is no state-published trial-court case search to substitute for it.
• Do not assume remote access. Sup.R. 11.12(A) provides that "A court or clerk of court may offer remote access to a court record" and not that it must, while Sup.R. 11.11(A) requires a court or clerk to make a record available by direct access and to respond to a request "within a reasonable amount of time". The obligation that exists is an obligation to answer a direct request.
• Read Sup.R. 11.11(C) before planning a bulk pull, because a court may cap it. A court or clerk "may adopt a policy allowing it to limit the number of court records it will mail, transmit, or deliver per month, unless the requestor certifies in writing that the requestor does not intend to use or forward the records, or the information contained in them, for commercial purposes", and the division narrows "commercial" so that it does not include news reporting, assisting citizens in understanding court activities, or nonprofit educational research.
• Check the mayor's court tier when the address is a small municipality. The Supreme Court's 2019 summary records 286 municipal corporations reporting a mayor's court, describes those courts as "not courts of record", and limits them to "violations of local ordinances and state traffic laws", with an appeal to the municipal or county court having jurisdiction inside the municipal corporation. A common pleas and municipal court index does not obviously reach a mayor's court disposition.
• Read R.C. 1907.02 before assuming a misdemeanor sits in the common pleas court. A county court has jurisdiction over "all misdemeanor cases" and over felony preliminary hearings, so a misdemeanor disposition in territory outside a municipal court is a county court record.
• Apply the Columbus salary-history rule to processes touching the city, and apply it at the requisition stage rather than the offer stage, because it reaches screening. Columbus City Code 2335.03(A)(2) prohibits screening applicants on salary history, including requiring that prior compensation satisfy minimum or maximum criteria, and (A)(4) prohibits refusing to hire or retaliating against an applicant for not disclosing it. Division (D)(4) permits a background check and provides that salary history the check discloses "shall not be solely relied upon" in setting compensation.
• Do not apply the Columbus posting requirement yet. Columbus City Code 2335.03(C) requires a reasonable salary range or scale, and the editor's note to Ordinance No. 2898-2025 states that the subsection "shall not be enforced by the city until January 1, 2027". The prohibition on asking is in force; the posting duty is deferred.
• Do not assume Ohio preempts a local fair-chance ordinance. R.C. 4113.85(B) makes nine scheduling matters exclusively a matter of employer policy, and division (D) preserves "the authority provided by case law, the Revised Code, or Section 3 of Article XVIII, Ohio Constitution, for a political subdivision to adopt a resolution or ordinance to limit the hours an employer operates." The preemption is about hours and it does not reach hiring.
• Keep the Ohio public-sector form separate from the private-sector one. R.C. 9.73(B) bars "any question concerning the criminal background of the applicant" on an application form used by a state agency or a political subdivision, and division (C) permits a statement notifying an applicant of a statutory disqualification. A form used for both needs the question removed for the public-sector requisitions.
• Do not build a cannabis adverse action on a medical-card theory. R.C. 3796.22 and R.C. 3796.221 contain no occurrence of the word "employ", R.C. 3796.28(A)(2) and (A)(3) preserve refusal to hire, discharge and drug-free workplace policies, and division (B) makes a policy-violating discharge just cause for unemployment purposes. The instrument that supports the decision is the employer's written policy, and R.C. 3796.28(C) is the provision that keeps the decision out of R.C. 4112.02.

Related states

• Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania limits how a conviction may be used rather than whether it may be asked about: 18 Pa.C.S. § 9125 lets an employer consider a felony or a misdemeanor conviction only to the extent it relates to the applicant’s suitability for the position applied for, and requires a written notice when a decision not to hire rests in whole or in part on criminal history record information, which the Third Circuit read in January 2026 to reach a conviction the applicant volunteered. The State Police repository answers against Pennsylvania law enforcement records only and never federal ones, a Pennsylvania court docket sits outside the state criminal history statute altogether, and the docket number that identifies a case carries a county code where a judicial district number would be expected. Philadelphia then bans the inquiry, reaching research conducted for an employer by a third party, and sets a seven-year felony and four-year misdemeanor window measured from the underlying arrest or release from incarceration, whichever is later, with ten business days to answer a provisional decision.
• Michigan. Michigan lets an applicant withhold a misdemeanor arrest that led to no conviction even when answering under oath, and its state criminal history product deletes each result after seven days while warning it may not be accepted. Its limited-jurisdiction courts sit on city and township lines rather than county lines, so the county is not the unit of search.
• New York. New York sets its salary threshold at $25,000, so the seven-year limit reaches jobs federal law exempts, and its bar on reporting arrests has no time limit attached to it.

What we do

Ohio is four court systems and a three-way sealing rule. R.C. 9.73 bans the criminal-history question on a public employer's application form and reaches a state agency, a county, a township and a municipal corporation, and it reaches no private employer at all. R.C. 2953.34 then splits sealing three ways: a sealed non-conviction is unaskable and the person may answer as if the arrest never happened, an expunged conviction is unaskable, and a sealed conviction is askable "unless the question bears a direct and substantial relationship to the position for which the person is being considered". The state repository is narrower than the courts on ordinary misdemeanors, because R.C. 109.57(A)(1) directs it to hold felonies and a named set of misdemeanors, and wider than the courts on expunged convictions, because R.C. 2953.32(D)(5) requires it to keep them for law-enforcement employment screening and forbids a court from compelling their destruction. Below the common pleas courts sit municipal courts, county courts and 286 mayor's courts that are not courts of record. Our Ohio work cites the section that sealed the record rather than the word "sealed", names the authority a bureau check was ordered under, and runs the state county by county and court by court. If your current vendor reports Ohio as one search, or reports a sealed conviction as unaskable, this is where that shows.

Sources

• R.C. 9.73, Restriction on questions concerning criminal background, the public-employer ban-the-box, read in full from codes.ohio.gov
• R.C. Chapter 4112, Civil Rights, read in full; contains no occurrence of "criminal record" and none of "arrest"
• R.C. Chapter 4113, Miscellaneous Labor Provisions, read in full; contains no salary-history and no credit-check provision
• R.C. 4113.85, Matters subject to employer policy, the scheduling preemption and the local-authority saving at division (D)
• R.C. 2953.32, Sealing or expungement of record of conviction, effective 30 September 2025, including the bureau retention rule at division (D)(5)
• R.C. 2953.33, the non-conviction section, shown on the state host as former R.C. 2953.52 renumbered by S.B. 288, effective 4 April 2023
• R.C. 2953.34, Effect of sealing or expungement order under R.C. 2953.32 or 2953.33, including divisions (L)(1), (N)(1), (N)(2)(a), (N)(2)(b), (N)(2)(c) and (O)
• R.C. Chapter 2953 in full, read for the section map and the renumbering, including R.C. 2953.35 and R.C. 2953.36
• R.C. 2953.321, Expungement of marijuana or hashish possession offenses, effective 20 March 2026 by S.B. 56 of the 136th General Assembly
• R.C. 109.57, Duties of superintendent, read in full, including the repository scope at (A)(1), the public-records exclusion at (D)(1)(a), the attorney general rulemaking at (E)(1) and the three arrest situations at (E)(3)
• R.C. 109.572, Criminal records check, effective 20 March 2026, including the sealed-record inclusion at division (B)(1) and its list of requesting statutes
• R.C. Chapter 109 in full, read for the bureau provisions
• R.C. Chapter 3796, Marijuana Control Program, read in full, including R.C. 3796.13, R.C. 3796.22, R.C. 3796.221 and R.C. 3796.28, all effective 20 March 2026 by S.B. 56
• R.C. Chapter 4776, the criminal records check procedure R.C. 3796.13 points to for cannabis licensee employment
• R.C. 2301.01, the court of common pleas in each county
• R.C. 1901.01, Organization of municipal courts, read for the named list at (A) and the county-wide courts at (B) to (G)
• R.C. 1905.01, mayor's court jurisdiction, and R.C. 1905.033, annual registration and quarterly reporting
• R.C. 1907.01 and R.C. 1907.02, county courts and their criminal jurisdiction over "all misdemeanor cases" and felony preliminary hearings
• Supreme Court of Ohio, Rules of Superintendence, the 2026 restructuring, which renumbered former Sup.R. 44 to 47 as Sup.R. 11.09 to 11.16, read in full
• Supreme Court of Ohio, Mayor's Courts Registration and Reporting, read live through the reader proxy
• Supreme Court of Ohio, Mayor's Courts 2019 Summary, the source of the 286 count and the court-character and jurisdiction description
• Supreme Court of Ohio, Find Ohio Trial Courts & Local Rules, the county-by-county directory of the 88 counties and their courts
• Columbus City Code Chapter 2335, Prohibited Salary History Inquiry and Use; Pay Transparency Requirements, read at section level from the city's codifier
• Ohio H.B. 828, 136th General Assembly, Regards use of automated employment decision tools, status read from the legislature, text from the legislature's bill store
• Route note: codes.ohio.gov was reachable through the r.jina.ai reader proxy and returned full chapter text, so every Ohio statute quotation here was read against the state host and not a commercial mirror. supremecourt.ohio.gov and ohiocourts.gov do not answer direct requests from this environment (connection failure after roughly 21 seconds) and were reached through the same proxy. library.municode.com renders the Columbus code at section level but not the Cincinnati or Cleveland deep nodes, and codelibrary.amlegal.com returned a not-found page for the Cincinnati paths tried, which is why slot 4 carries one verified city. No Ohio case law was read, because the case-law mirrors are blocked. The administrative code host answers "Number Not Found" for the chapter numbers tried for the R.C. 109.57(E)(1) rules.

Last reviewed 23 September 2026. This page is checked on a quarterly cycle, because state screening law changes every legislative session. Nothing here is legal advice; see the terms of use.