To amend section 4112.01 and to enact sections 124.92, 2701.21, and 4112.20 of the Revised Code to define antisemitism for the purpose of investigations and proceedings in courts and state agencies and for state employee anti-bias training.
HB90 would define “antisemitism” in Ohio law by incorporating the working definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016, including its contemporary examples. The bill amends the state’s civil rights chapter and adds new provisions directing that this definition be used in certain state contexts, including anti-bias training for state employees, court proceedings, and state agency investigations.
The bill requires courts of record, court-appointed authorities, arbitrators, and special masters to apply the same legal standard to claims alleging discrimination based on antisemitism as they would to comparable discrimination claims under Ohio’s civil rights laws. It also directs state agencies, when reviewing or deciding whether a policy, law, or regulation has been violated, to consider the antisemitism definition in determining whether conduct was motivated by antisemitism. The bill states that the definition should be used as an educational tool for state employee anti-discrimination and anti-bias training.
HB90 would affect Chapter 4112 of the Revised Code, Ohio’s primary anti-discrimination statute, and would add new sections governing state agency conduct and judicial proceedings. It also repeals the existing version of section 4112.01 and replaces it with a revised definition section that includes antisemitism. The bill expressly says the definition cannot be used to diminish First Amendment rights or to conflict with other federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws.
The available legislative context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials. Because there is no voting history or transcript, there is no documented formal support or opposition in the record supplied. The bill’s text, however, suggests an intent to standardize how antisemitism is identified in government and legal settings while preserving existing civil rights protections.
The main point of potential contention is the use of the IHRA definition in law and government decision-making. Supporters would likely view the bill as a tool to improve consistency in identifying antisemitic conduct and training public employees, while critics may be concerned about how the definition could be applied in investigations or proceedings, especially where speech or political expression is involved. The bill attempts to address those concerns by including an explicit First Amendment savings clause.
HB90 would amend Ohio’s civil rights framework by inserting a statutory definition of antisemitism into section 4112.01 and by creating new sections that require courts and state agencies to consider that definition in relevant proceedings and investigations. It would also require state employee anti-bias training to use the antisemitism definition as an educational reference. The bill would affect state agencies, courts, arbitrators, special masters, and institutions covered by the state agency definition, including public higher education and state retirement systems.
The bill appears to be framed as a civil rights and anti-discrimination measure, with an emphasis on consistency in identifying antisemitism across state government and the courts. Because the bill has only been introduced and no committee testimony or votes are provided, there is no recorded formal sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill seems designed to be protective and clarifying rather than punitive, while also including language intended to reassure readers that constitutional speech protections remain intact.
The most notable area of contention is the adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, including its examples, for use in legal and administrative settings. Supporters are likely to argue that a clear definition is needed for investigations, training, and adjudication of antisemitism-related claims. Opponents or skeptics may worry that the definition could be applied too broadly or could chill protected speech, particularly in contexts involving political criticism or public debate. The bill responds to that concern by stating that it should not be construed to infringe First Amendment rights or conflict with other anti-discrimination laws.