This Note argues that the Ohio Revised Code prohibition of residency requirements does not qualify as legislation for the "comfort, health, safety and welfare of all employees" since the law improperly attempts to control conditions for employment, rather than conditions of employment, and that the Supreme Court of Ohio has previously, improperly interpreted the employee welfare provision and should more narrowly construe, if not reverse, its holding in Rocky River IV. Part II addresses residency requirements in the city of Cleveland and describes the current litigation in which the city is involved. Part III provides a background of the four Rocky River cases. Finally, Part IV argues that Rocky River IV should be overturned because it improperly departed from precedent and the original intent of the framers of the Ohio Constitution.
Note, Ohio's Ban on Municipal Residency Requirements: Can the Employee Welfare Provisions of the Ohio Constitution Protect the Ban from Home Rule Challenges, 56 Clev. St. L. Rev. 709 (2008)