Category: Compliance/Legal Issues

  • WHD Begins Enforcement of Remedies Provided Under PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act – CUPA-HR

    WHD Begins Enforcement of Remedies Provided Under PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 1, 2023

    On April 28, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) will begin enforcing remedies for employer violations of an employee’s right to reasonable break time and space to pump breast milk under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These remedies were codified into law under the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act, which was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 — year-end legislation to fund the federal government.

    As a reminder, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act amends the FLSA to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds on existing protections in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Provision by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. In the new law, protections are expanded to include salaried employees exempt from overtime pay requirements under the FLSA as well as other categories of employees currently exempt from such protections, such as teachers, nurses and farmworkers. It also clarifies that break time provided under this bill is considered compensable hours worked so long as the worker is not completely relieved of duty during such breaks, and it ensures remedies for nursing mothers for employer violations of the bill.

    According to a WHD fact sheet on FLSA protections to pump breast milk at work, there will be several legal or equitable remedies employers will be liable for if they are found to have violated an employee’s right to reasonable time and space to pump in the workplace. The document states that remedies may include “employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, compensatory damages and make-whole relief, such as economic losses that resulted from violations, and punitive damages where appropriate.” The fact sheet also clarifies that the remedies listed above will be available regardless of whether an employee experienced retaliation.

    In addition to the fact sheet, the WHD has issued several resources on the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act’s provisions since its enactment. On February 9, the WHD issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2023-1, “Telework Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Family and Medical Leave Act.” This bulletin provides guidance for WHD field staff on how to apply protections under the FLSA that provide reasonable break time for nursing employees to express milk while teleworking, among other clarifications. The bulletin explicitly refers to the passage of the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act and its expanded coverage to more employees. Additionally, on March 16, the WHD held a webinar to provide resources and tools to assist employees who wish to continue breastfeeding after returning to work and to help employers understand their responsibilities under the Act.

    For more information on the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act and FLSA protections to pump at work, the WHD has provided a resource website with general guidance, additional resources and the webinar on the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates to this law and others regarding FLSA protections for pregnant and nursing workers.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — April 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — April 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2023

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    NLRB Rules Graduate Student Fellows With No Teaching or Research Assistant Responsibilities Are Not University Employees and Cannot Unionize 

    A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director in Boston recently issued a decision that approximately 1,500 graduate student fellows at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who receive a grant but do not have any teaching or research assistant responsibilities are not employees, cannot unionize, or join the university’s existing union of approximately 3,700 graduate teaching and research assistants (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (N.L.R.B. Regional Dir. No. 01-RC-304042, 3/13/23)).

    The existing union of graduate teaching and research assistants is organized by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. According to the decision, those graduate teaching and research assistants who receive an annual compensation package of approximately $120,000, including a tuition subsidy, stipend and medical insurance are university employees. Also according to the decision, the fellows who have no teaching or research responsibilities and typically work on their own thesis projects with some funding from the university are not university employees. The decision holding that the fellows are not employees is tied to a provision in the Columbia University decision, which held that students who have “unfettered ability” to pursue their own goals would not be considered employees because their compensation would be similar to a scholarship.

    Union Complaint Dismissed After Employer’s Attempt to Increase a Unionized Employee’s Work Production Ruled Permissible On-the-Job Coaching

    An NLRB administrative law judge recently dismissed a union claim that an employer committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally changing working conditions when it suggested that a unionized staff reporter increase his output of written articles. The judge concluded that when the newspaper editors suggested that the reporter strive to write 15 articles every 30 days, that this action was a permissible attempt to coach, develop and improve the quality and production of the reporter’s work (The NewsGuild-CWA v. The Morning Call LLC (NLRB ALJ No. 04-CA-292410, 3/9/23)).

    The newspaper editors began meeting with the reporter every two weeks when they noticed he was lagging behind the paper’s standard article production goal of five articles per week. The judge noted that the editors did not threaten the reporter with penalties if he did not meet the goals. More importantly, the judge concluded that the goals were not a change in working conditions because they were less that the goals given to the rest of newsroom staff. The case clearly enforces an employer’s prerogative to meet with a unionized employee and suggest ways to improve job performance consistent with applicable workplace standards.

    EEOC Reports a 20 Percent Increase In Discrimination Charges and a Substantial Increase in Monetary Benefits Garnered for Victims of Discrimination in Fiscal Year 2022 

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported a 20 percent increase in the number of discrimination charges it received during fiscal year (FY) 2022 “as the nation emerged from the pandemic.” The charges filed against employers increased from 61,331 charges received in FY 2021 to 73,485 new charges received in FY 2022. The EEOC’s announcement came as the Biden administration proposed an increase in EEOC funding for the new fiscal year.

    The EEOC also announced that it increased the amount of monetary benefits it obtained for victims of discrimination in FY 2022. The agency reported that it obtained $513 million in benefits for victims of discrimination in FY 2022, up from $484 million in benefits obtained for discrimination victims in FY 2021.

    OSHA Reports a 20 Percent Increase in Inspectors Under the Biden Administration

    The number of federal workplace safety inspectors has increased by 20 percent during the Biden administration. The federal safety agency hired 227 inspectors during 2022, bringing its total inspectors to 900. Across all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) staff positions, the agency has grown from 1,800 staff members to 2,100 members (17 percent). This enhances OSHA’s ability to perform more workplace safety inspections and investigate more pending employee workplace safety complaints. Another result of this significant increase in inspectors is that one in five inspectors now has less than one year of on-the-job experience.

    OSHA has faced criticism that it has not adequately responded to worker complaints, and the Department of Labor’s inspector general recently issued a negative report. The inspector general concluded that the agency in recent years (both 2019 and 2020) “… did not consistently ensure that complaints and referrals were adequately addressed, nor did it regularly enforce hazard abatement timelines.”

    Court of Appeals Skeptical of Employees’ “Fundamental Right” to Refuse State-Imposed Hospital Employer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

    In a case involving a group of nurses who refused their hospital employer’s COVID-19 booster requirement for a number of personal, non-religious and non-disability-related reasons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) appeared skeptical at oral argument (Sczesny et al v. The State of New Jersey, Governor Philip Murphy (3rd Cir. Case no. 22-2230, Arg 3/21/23)). The hospital enforced a state-mandated requirement in New Jersey. The attorney for the nurses argued that they had a “fundamental right” to refuse the vaccine boosters. The Court of Appeals panel noted that a number of courts that have ruled on this issue found no “fundamental right.”

    NLRB Issues Warning That Severance Agreements With “Overly Broad” Confidentiality/Gag Provisions Relating to Non-Disparagement Are Illegal Under Recent NLRB Case Law 

    NLRB general counsel issued guidance on March 23, 2023, that previously negotiated severance agreements with overly broad confidentiality/gag orders relating to non-disparagement of employers are illegal under the March decision of McClaren Macomb. The NLRB considers employer enforcement of such provisions to be a violation of the NLRA.

    The NLRB general counsel suggested that in designing new confidentiality agreements, employers should target “dissemination of trade secrets” based on “legitimate business justifications.” Additionally, agreements should be narrowly drafted to prohibit “maliciously untrue statements.”



    Source link

  • Department of Education Releases Title IX Rulemaking on Transgender Student Eligibility in School Athletics – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Releases Title IX Rulemaking on Transgender Student Eligibility in School Athletics – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2023

    On April 6, the U.S. Department of Education released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on student eligibility for athletic teams under Title IX. The proposed rulemaking focuses on transgender students’ eligibility to participate on athletic teams as legislation and policies at the federal, state and local levels have been introduced to ban transgender student participation in athletic programs.

    Under the NPRM, schools that receive federal funding would not be permitted to adopt or apply a “one-size-fits-all” ban on transgender students participating on teams consistent with their gender identity. Instead, the proposal allows schools the flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serves important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The Department further explains that the eligibility criteria must take into account the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level of students participating, and the criteria would have to minimize harm to students whose opportunity to participate on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

    The NPRM comes after the Biden administration announced its intention to release such a proposed rule after it excluded language on transgender student eligibility in athletics in its June 2022 Title IX proposed rule. The rule comes as policymakers at the federal, state and local levels have introduced and passed legislation that bans transgender participation on women’s athletic teams. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, out of the Education and the Workforce Committee, where it now awaits a full floor vote. The bill would prohibit federally-funded education programs or activities to operate, sponsor or facilitate athletic programs or activities that allow individuals of the male sex to participate in programs or activities that are designated for women or girls, defining “sex” as an individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

    Public comments in response to the NPRM will be due 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. CUPA-HR will work with other higher education associations to fully analyze the NPRM and respond accordingly.



    Source link

  • NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo on Recent Severance Agreement Ruling – CUPA-HR

    NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo on Recent Severance Agreement Ruling – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 27, 2023

    On March 22, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo to all field offices with guidance on the Board’s recent decision in McLaren Macomb, in which the Board decided that employers cannot offer employees severance agreements that require employees to waive rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), such as confidentiality and non-disparagement requirements. According to the NLRB’s press release, the memo is to be used as guidance to assist field offices responding to inquiries from workers, employers, labor unions and the public about implications stemming from McLaren Macomb.

    The memo offers guidance on the decision’s scope and effect of the McLaren Macomb decision. In the memo, Abruzzo stated that the decision has retroactive application, and she directed employers who may have previously offered severance agreements with “overly broad” non-disparagement or confidentiality provisions to contact employees to advise them that such provisions are now void and will not be enforced. Abruzzo also clarified that confidentiality clauses that are “narrowly tailored” to restricting dissemination of proprietary information or trade secrets may still be lawful “based on legitimate business justifications,” and that non-disparagement clauses that are limited to “employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue (…) may be found lawful.”

    With respect to supervisors, Abruzzo specified that supervisors are not generally protected by the NLRA, but she added that they are protected from retaliation if they refuse to offer a severance agreement with broad non-disparagement or confidentiality provisions to their employees.

    As a reminder, CUPA-HR will be hosting a webinar on the McLaren Macomb decision Thursday, March 30 at 1:00 p.m. ET. The webinar will cover the McLaren Macomb decision and this subsequent memo, and presenters will discuss how the decision may fundamentally change how and when colleges and universities may use confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. Registration is required for participation, but free to all CUPA-HR members.



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Decision Blocking Certain Provisions in Severance Agreements, CUPA-HR to Hold Webinar – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Decision Blocking Certain Provisions in Severance Agreements, CUPA-HR to Hold Webinar – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 20, 2023

    On February 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its decision in McLaren Macomb deciding that employers cannot offer employees severance agreements that require employees to waive rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), such as confidentiality and non-disparagement requirements.

    The Board explained in its press release on the decision that if an employer offers a severance agreement with a provision that requires the employees to broadly give up their rights under the Act, the employer violates the NLRA. The simple offering of the agreement “is itself an attempt to deter employees from exercising their statutory rights, at a time when employees may feel they must give up their rights in order to get the benefits provided in the agreement.” NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran said “It’s long been understood by the Board and the courts that employers cannot ask individual employees to choose between receiving benefits and exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.”

    McFerran issued the decision alongside NLRB Democratic Members Gwynne Wilcox and David Prouty, while Republican Board Member Marvin Kaplan dissented. The decision reverses two Trump-era NLRB decisions, Baylor University Medical Center and IGT d/b/a International Game Technology. Both of these decisions determined severance agreements with confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions not unlawful in and of themselves.

    Importantly, this decision does not apply to public sector employees as the NLRB only has statutory jurisdiction over private sector employees. Additionally, the ruling does not apply to employees in supervisory or managerial positions.

    CUPA-HR will hold a webinar on this rulemaking and its potential impact on higher ed institutions on March 30, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. ET. Registration is required for participation, but free to all CUPA-HR members. To register, please visit the event’s web page.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — March 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — March 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 15, 2023

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    Court of Appeals May Narrow LBGTQ Rights Under Title VII

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) recently heard oral argument over a U.S. District Court judge’s ruling that private businesses may assert a religious exemption to bias claims brought by LBGTQ workers under federal anti-discrimination statutes. The trial court had granted summary judgment that religious employers objecting to dress codes, bathroom policies or hiring of LBGTQ employees are protected by the First Amendment (Braidwood Management v. EEOC (5th Cir. No 22-10145, oral ARG 2/7/23).

    If the trial court decision is upheld, it would blunt the reach of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that LBGTQ workers can sue employers for job discrimination under Title VII based on gender identity or sexual orientation. The plaintiffs in the case are a Texas based healthcare provider and a Church. We will follow developments in this case.  

    Qualifying Temporary Workers Granted Pay-Parity Rights Equal to Full-Time Employees Under New Jersey State Statute

    New Jersey-based employers will have to grant certain temporary employees hired in the state pay and benefits equal to what the employer pays full-time direct-hire employees. The new law, recently signed by the governor (effective 180 days after the 2/7/23 signing), creates a “bill of rights” for many temporary employees and applies to specific New Jersey employers. The law applies only to the manufacturing, warehousing and logistics, food service, construction, building security and maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping industries. The statute does not cover healthcare workers, business and finance professionals, salespeople, and information security and technology staff. The statute does apply to temporary staffing agencies.

    New Jersey is joining California, Illinois and Massachusetts in adopting a statute protecting temporary employees. However, the New Jersey statute goes a step further than the other states in requiring pay and benefits equivalent to similarly situated full time employees in the industries and areas described above.   

    Offensive Music in Workplace Brings Sex Harassment/Hostile Environment Litigation  

    Bloomberg reports multiple filings of sex harassment, hostile work environment lawsuits based on claims that offensive music being played in the workplace creates a sexually hostile work environment. The multiple litigation filings involve manufacturing and warehouse employees. The employees are complaining that obscene and misogynistic rap music was continually played in the workplace over the objection of the complaining employees. The complaints allege that managers and other employees regularly played vulgar music and ignored the complaints and objections of offended employees. The allegations state that allowing the music to continue created a sexually hostile work environment, which is actionable under Title VII.

    Employers can avoid such litigation by establishing and enforcing policies that forbid sexually or racially offensive content in the workplace.  

    Tenured Public School Teacher’s Termination for Unprofessional Social Media Posts Reversed — Court Holds Tenure Entitled Her to a Warning and Opportunity to Remedy 

    A tenured Illinois public school history teacher who was terminated after posting publicly available “unprofessional” and “disrespectful” social media posts had her termination reversed by an Illinois appellate court. The termination had been affirmed by the trial court. The teacher claimed not to realize that her posts were public as opposed to being distributed only to “friends” on Facebook.

    Among other posts, the teacher shared a Facebook post from a group called Bored Teachers which stated, “I can think of no better form of birth control than to have people observe my class for a day.” In another post she described a student’s parents as “clearly crazy” and “nuts.” The teacher was terminated for making unprofessional remarks about students on Facebook. The head of HR testified that the plaintiff was not remorseful and thought the posts were therapeutic.

    The Illinois appellate court concluded that the plaintiff’s posts were “clearly foolish” and “unprofessional.” Nonetheless the appellate court concluded that the Illinois state statute afforded tenured teachers the right to warning and a chance to remedy their transgressions (Kelleher v. Illinois State Board of Education (Ill App. Ct. 1st Dist. No. 1-22-0058, Order 2/14/23)). 

    EEOC Commissioner Charges at Record High 

    EEOC commissioner charges for fiscal 2022 jumped to a record high of 22, up from just 3 in the previous year and the highest number since records have been kept on annual commissioner charges. A commissioner charge is one filed by an EEOC commissioner raising a potential legal issue. The vast majority of EEOC charges are filed by alleged victims.

    Commentators point out that the commissioner charge increase is likely due to a partisan block of action at the EEOC. Under the Biden administration, the EEOC had a Democrat chair and a Republican majority of members (three Republicans, two Democrats) until November 2022. Currently, the commission has a Democrat chair and a vacant seat, leaving it with two Democrat members and two Republican members. The filling of the open commission seat is still on hold due to blockage of the nomination process in Congress. 

    OFCCP Rescinds Trump Administration Religious Carve-Out Allowing Federal Contractors to Ignore Anti-Discrimination Obligations Based on Faith 

    The OFCCP announced new regulations on February 28, 2023, rescinding the Trump administration regulations allowing government contractors to ignore certain anti-discrimination obligations based on their faith. The new regulations bring back the prior standard, which had been in place for nearly two decades, and do not allow the defense. The new regulations will be published shortly and effective 30 days after publication. The Trump administration rule, which will be revoked, faced continued opposition from civil rights groups and LBGTQ advocates. This rule applies to the OFCCP enforcement of antidiscrimination rules under Executive Order 11246, applicable to all federal government contractors. 

     



    Source link

  • DOL to Host Webinar on the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act – CUPA-HR

    DOL to Host Webinar on the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 8, 2023

    On March 16, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) will present a webinar titled “The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act: What Advocates and Employers Need to Know.” The free webinar is intended to provide resources and tools to assist employees who wish to continue breastfeeding after returning to work and to help employers understand their responsibilities under the law.

    In December 2022, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act was enacted into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds on existing protections in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Provision by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. In the new law, protections are expanded to include salaried employees exempt from overtime pay requirements under the FLSA as well as other categories of employees currently exempt from such protections, such as teachers, nurses and farmworkers. It also clarifies that break time provided under this bill is considered compensable hours worked so long as the worker is not completely relieved of duty during such breaks, and it ensures remedies for nursing mothers for employer violations of the bill.

    Following the passage of the Act, on February 9, WHD issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2023-1, “Telework Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Family and Medical Leave Act.” This bulletin provides guidance for WHD field staff on how to apply protections under the FLSA that provide reasonable break time for nursing employees to express milk while teleworking, among other clarifications. The bulletin explicitly refers to the passage of the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act and its expanded coverage to more employees, and it may be discussed during the upcoming webinar.

    The webinar will be held on Thursday, March 16 at 2:00 p.m. ET. The webinar is free to the public, and participants can register to attend online. CUPA-HR’s government relations team will attend the webinar and keep members apprised of any significant updates related to the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.

     



    Source link

  • Department of Education’s OCR Issues Resource Documents on Title IX Compliance for Athletic Programs – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education’s OCR Issues Resource Documents on Title IX Compliance for Athletic Programs – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 1, 2023

    On February 17, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued three resource documents on Title IX compliance for school athletic programs. The first resource document covers support for equal opportunity in school athletic programs generally, while the other two cover Title IX and athletic opportunities at K-12 schools and colleges and universities separately.

    According to the OCR, these documents were designed “to help students, parents, coaches, athletic directors and school officials evaluate whether a school is meeting its legal duty to provide equal athletic opportunity regardless of sex,” and they provide examples of situations that may mean a school is not complying with Title IX requirements. The guidance does not make any changes to existing enforcement procedures for the OCR, rather, it is intended to be used by institutions to ensure that their existing protocols and programs are compliant with Title IX.

    Supporting Equal Opportunity in School Athletic Programs

    The first resource document reiterates Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities, including athletic programs, that receive federal funds. It states that Title IX requires schools to effectively accommodate the athletic interests and abilities of their students regardless of sex, and provide equal opportunity in the benefits, opportunities and treatment provided for their athletic teams. It also clarifies that Title IX requires colleges and universities to not discriminate on the basis of sex in the provision of any athletic scholarships or financial assistance to students.

    The resource document included four examples of situations that may surface Title IX concerns at colleges and universities, which are listed below:

    • The men’s teams at a college receives new athletic apparel and gear each year, while the women’s teams must use old apparel and purchase some of their own equipment.
    • Across its entire athletic program, a college awards disproportionately more athletic financial assistance to men than women.
    • A university provides funds for its coaches to recruit athletes for its men’s football and basketball teams because it considers those teams to be “flagship sports.” It provides no funds for coaches to recruit women athletes. As a result, the school has difficulty attracting women to participate in its athletic program.
    • Women are underrepresented in a university’s athletic program compared to their representation in the student body. The university would have to offer 54 additional spots for its women students on existing or new teams for women to have substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities. Women have expressed an interest in having more teams, and there are women students participating in club sports for which there are no varsity teams. Those club sports include lacrosse, water polo, ice hockey and bowling — all of which have intercollegiate competitions available and are sanctioned by the athletic governing body the university belongs to. Yet, the university has not added a women’s team for many years.

    Title IX and Athletic Opportunities in Colleges and Universities

    The resource document designed specifically for institutions of higher education dives deeper into background information on Title IX, as well as ways that students, coaches, athletic directors and school officials can evaluate a school’s athletic program and whether it’s meeting its legal requirements to provide equal athletic opportunity. With respect to the evaluation, the document guides readers with questions and examples of Title IX compliance with respect to the benefits, opportunities and treatment for men’s and women’s teams; athletic scholarships and financial assistance, and meeting students’ athletics interests and abilities.

    Benefits, Opportunities and Treatment for Men’s and Women’s Teams

    With respect to equivalent benefits, opportunities and treatment for men’s and women’s teams, the resource document lists several questions about an institution’s attempts to provide equal opportunities to both men and women student-athletes. These questions surround the following topics:

    • Equipment and supplies
    • Scheduling games and practice time
    • Travel and daily allowances
    • Coaching
    • Academic tutors
    • Locker rooms, fields, courts and other facilities for practice and competition
    • Medical and training facilities and services
    • Housing and dining services
    • Publicity
    • Recruitment

    The resource document explicitly states that if any of the questions listed under these topics is answered as a “no,” it may indicate a possible Title IX violation.

    Athletic Scholarships and Financial Assistance

    The document also creates questions that may be used to assess a school’s provision of scholarships and athletic financial assistance. The questions help guide users to measure the percentage of women and men participants at their institution and the percentage of scholarship awards provided to women and men, and it lists questions and examples to help compare these percentages. These questions may again point to disparities among programs that could be potential violations of Title IX, but the OCR states that it “will take into account all legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for disparities provided by the school” if there are disparities present between percentages awarded to men’s and women’s programs.

    Meeting Students’ Athletic Interests and Capabilities

    The resource document refers to the “three-part test” that institutions may use to demonstrate that all Title IX legal requirements are being fulfilled. Schools are only required to use one of three options to show compliance with Title IX, which are detailed in the document and briefly listed below:

    • Option 1: Substantial Proportionality — This option looks to whether the percentage of women and men participants on athletic teams are about the same as, or “substantially proportionate” to, the percentage of women and men enrolled as full-time undergraduates at your school.
    • Option 2: History and Continuing Practice — This option looks to whether your school can show it has a history and continuing (i.e. present) practice of expanding its athletic program to respond to the interests and abilities of women, if women have been underrepresented, or if men have been underrepresented.
    • Option 3: Interests and Abilities of Students — This option asks whether your school can show that — despite the disproportionality — it is otherwise meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

    The resource document states that following longstanding practice for showing Title IX compliance — if an institution is unable to use any of the three options to show compliance with Title IX — may not be meeting legal requirements to provide equal opportunity to participate in athletics based on sex under Title IX.

    Options for Filing Complaints for Title IX Violations

    Both the general support and higher education-specific documents end their guidance with ways in which students, parents, employees and others in the school community may file Title IX complaints through their school’s grievance procedures if they believe their institution is not providing equal athletic opportunity based on sex. The documents first turn readers to their institution’s Title IX coordinator, but also provides the option to file a complaint online with the OCR. It also clarifies that anyone is able to file complaints with the OCR, which may include individuals outside of the school community.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for any updates to Title IX compliance and will keep members apprised of any updates with respect to Title IX law and regulations.



    Source link

  • President Biden Nominates Deputy Secretary Julie Su to Head the DOL – CUPA-HR

    President Biden Nominates Deputy Secretary Julie Su to Head the DOL – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 28, 2023

    On February 28, President Biden announced he would nominate Julie Su to lead the Department of Labor (DOL). Su is currently the deputy secretary of labor under Marty Walsh, who announced he would leave the agency mid-March to head the National Hockey League Players’ Association.

    Given previous opposition during her nomination to become deputy secretary, Su will likely face a difficult nomination process. In 2021, Su was confirmed into her current position by a 50-47 vote with no Republican support. Republican criticism during her nomination process arose from her prior role as secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. During her tenure in California, the agency handled oversight and enforcement of the state-passed bill, Assembly Bill 5 — a controversial law regarding independent contractor status and misclassification. Additionally, the agency oversaw COVID-19 pandemic relief and dealt with subsequent issues, including unemployment insurance fraud.

    President Biden said in his statement “It is my honor to nominate Julie Su to be our country’s next secretary of labor. Julie has spent her life fighting to make sure that everyone has a fair shot, that no community is overlooked and that no worker is left behind. Over several decades, Julie has led the largest state labor department in the nation, cracked down on wage theft, fought to protect trafficked workers, increased the minimum wage, created good-paying, high-quality jobs, and established and enforced workplace safety standards.”

    Su is backed by many Democrats and Asian American members of Congress as well as several labor unions, including the Service Employees International Union.

    Regardless of how her nomination goes, Su is in line to become the acting secretary of labor once Walsh leaves office. There are no limitations on what an acting secretary can do leading the agency, leaving Su with full authority over the DOL while her nomination is pending. Regulations anticipated in the near future, including the Wage and Hour Division’s overtime exemption rulemaking, will likely not be delayed as a result of this nomination.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of major updates at the Department of Labor and any significant guidance or regulations released by the agency.



    Source link

  • Supreme Court: Highly Compensated Employee Entitled to Overtime Because Employer Did Not Pay on a Salary Basis – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court: Highly Compensated Employee Entitled to Overtime Because Employer Did Not Pay on a Salary Basis – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 23, 2023

    On February 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Helix Energy Solutions, Inc. v. Hewitt, finding that an employee making over $200,000 per year was entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because he was not paid on a salary basis. The case is a reminder that exempt status depends not only on how much the employee is paid, but also on how they are paid. Employers may want to be particularly careful when providing exempt employees — including part-time exempt employees — with different weekly pay based on hours worked.

    Under U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, an employee must meet the following three requirements to be considered an executive, administrative or professional employee exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay mandates: (1) perform duties consistent with those exempt categories as set forth by the DOL, (2) be paid a minimum salary (currently set at $684 per week), and (3) be paid on a salary basis. The employer in the case argued that the employee was exempt because he was paid $963 per day, therefore making at least the minimum salary of $684 per week, and he met the duties test for an executive.

    The court found, however, that the employee was not paid on a salary basis as set forth in Section 541.602 of DOL regulations and was therefore not exempt. Section 541.602 requires exempt employees to receive the full pre-determined salary for any week in which they perform any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. Specifically, the court said the employee “did not get a salary (of $963 or any other amount) because his weekly take-home pay could be as little as $963 or as much as $13,482, depending on how many days he worked.” The court did say, however, that daily-rate workers could qualify as paid on a salary basis if the pay met the conditions set out in DOL regulations §541.604(b).

    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh contended that the salary threshold and salary basis test — both of which DOL created through regulations — may not be consistent with the FLSA itself. Specifically, Kavanaugh said:

    “The Act focuses on whether the employee performs executive duties, not how much an employee is paid or how an employee is paid. So it is questionable whether the Department’s regulations — which look not only at an employee’s duties but also at how much an employee is paid and how an employee is paid — will survive if and when the regulations are challenged as inconsistent with the Act. It is especially dubious for the regulations to focus on how an employee is paid (for example, by salary, wage, commission, or bonus) to determine whether the employee is a bona fide executive. An executive employee’s duties (and perhaps his total compensation) may be relevant to assessing whether the employee is a bona fide executive. But I am hard pressed to understand why it would matter for assessing executive status whether an employee is paid by salary, wage, commission, bonus, or some combination thereof.”

    Since the employer in this case failed to raise the challenge to the regulations properly, the issue was not considered before the court.  As such, it remains unclear how many justices agree with Kavanaugh and whether the majority of the court would overturn the DOL’s salary basis and threshold tests.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor all updates relating to the FLSA and its implementing regulations and will keep members apprised of significant news with respect to the overtime issue.



    Source link