Category: Compliance/Legal Issues

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 13, 2022

    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 to Decide Whether a Non-Citizen Applicant for U.S. College Soccer Coaching Position Is Covered Under U.S. Anti-Discrimination Laws 

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will review a federal trial court decision concluding that a non-citizen soccer coach applicant is not protected or covered by U.S. anti-discrimination statutes.

    The federal trial court dismissed the case against American University on summary judgement concluding that a non-citizen applicant living outside the United States is not protected under Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The plaintiff has appealed to the D.C. Circuit claiming that he was discriminated against because of his race, ethnicity and national origin when he did not receive the position he applied for (Nahkid v. American University ( DC Cir. No. 21-cv-7107, 3/11/22)). The plaintiff was a citizen of Trinidad Tobago and was living in Lebanon when he applied for the position. The plaintiff is a graduate of American University and played on the soccer team when he was a student.

    Federal Court Jury Awards Professor $3 Million for Past and Future Emotional Distress, Pain and Suffering Resulting From Her Tenure Denial Based on Her Sex and Pregnancies

    A federal district court jury in west Texas awarded an assistant engineering professor more than $3 million in damages as a result of finding that the University of Texas At Austin denied her tenure because of her sex and pregnancies. The professor was awarded $1 million for past emotional pain and suffering, $2 million for future emotional pain and suffering and $50,000 for lost back pay and benefits (Nikolova v. University of Texas at Austin (W, Dist Tex. No. 1:19-cv-00877, jury verdict 3/14/22)). Motions may be filed to have the court reduce the jury’s damage verdict.

    Court of Appeals Dismisses Student Intern’s Title VII Discrimination Claims Due to No Employee/Employer Relationship

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third circuit (covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a Temple University student intern’s race discrimination lawsuit against an opioid rehab facility, Prevention Point, where he was interning. The plaintiff was a student in Temple’s public health program and obtained the internship as part of the program to complete his degree. In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals concluded that the plaintiff did not have an employee/employer relationship with Prevention Point, so there was no Title VII jurisdiction (Payne v. Prevention Point Philadelphia (2022 BL 86265 Cir. No. 21-02173, unpublished, 3/15/22)).

    The court pointed to evidence that documented that the goals of the internship related to the plaintiff’s course work at Temple and that other documents supported the fact that university staff coordinated with the facility’s staff to manage the internship.

    New York State Court System Terminates 103 Unvaccinated Employees as Appeals Court Reinstates Presidential Vaccine Mandate Among Federal Workers

    New York state court administrators disclosed that they have terminated 103 employees for failure to adhere to the court system’s vaccine mandate. They also reported that another 12 employees have retired or resigned after they failed to comply with the court’s COVID-19 vaccine requirements. All unvaccinated employees were given a warning last month that they faced possible termination for not complying with the vaccine mandate. Forty-one people in that group did comply and were not among those terminated for non-compliance.

    Four judges also face further action for not complying as the court administrators do not have the power to terminate non-compliant judges. It appears that the court administrators will refer non-compliant judges to the judicial ethics independent watchdog for non-compliance and further potential action.

    Union officials representing the terminated employees continue to fight the terminations. Federal courts have ruled against attempts to block enforcement of the court administration’s vaccine mandate.

    Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a Texas federal district court judge’s order, blocking the presidential requirement for federal civilian employees to be vaccinated. The court of appeals threw out the challenge to the presidential order, requiring over two million federal civilian employees to be vaccinated or face termination (Feds for Medical Freedom v. Joseph Biden (5th Cir. No. 22-40043, 4/7/22).

    States Beginning to Ban Employer Non-Disclosure Agreements

    The state of Washington recently became the latest state to restrict an employer’s ability to request or demand a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as a condition of employment or as part of a settlement agreement in discrimination or other employment-related cases.

    The Washington state law takes effect on June 9, 2022. The law goes on step further than similar laws in California and New York, which ban NDAs. The Washington state law bans confidentiality agreements, in addition to NDAs, as part of workplace settlements related to allegations of illegal conduct.



    Source link

  • Reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act Signed Into Law – CUPA-HR

    Reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act Signed Into Law – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2022

    On March 15, President Biden signed into law the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2022. The legislation reauthorizes all current VAWA grant programs through 2027 and was included in the omnibus appropriations package, which provided $1.5 trillion to fund the federal government for fiscal year 2022.

    Several of the VAWA Reauthorization Act’s provisions will specifically impact higher education institutions. The bill:

    • requires colleges and universities to conduct campus climate surveys of students to track their experiences of sexual violence on campus;
    • expands and provides additional funding for the Rape Prevention and Education Grant Program and other existing campus grants designed to provide comprehensive prevention education for students;
    • establishes a pilot program that provides funding to colleges and universities (among other entities) to create programs on restorative practices to prevent and address sexual violence;
    • requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a demonstration grant program for colleges and universities to provide comprehensive forensic training to train healthcare providers on forensic assessments and trauma-informed care to survivors of sexual violence; and
    • requires the Government Accountability Office to examine the relationships between victims of sexual violence and their ability to repay their student loans.

    Of particular concern for higher ed institutions is the survey to track student experiences of sexual violence on campus. Conducting the survey could create challenges for the institutions as well as for the Department of Education charged with developing it. Additionally, some institutions are already conducting similar surveys on their campuses, creating a risk of duplicated efforts. This will be a complex undertaking for both the department and higher ed institutions.

    CUPA-HR will update members on any additional information on the implementation of the VAWA Reauthorization Act as it is released.



    Source link

  • President Biden Nominates Kalpana Kotagal to Serve as EEOC Commissioner – CUPA-HR

    President Biden Nominates Kalpana Kotagal to Serve as EEOC Commissioner – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 11, 2022

    On April 1, President Biden announced his intention to nominate Kalpana Kotagal to serve as a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If confirmed, Kotagal would give the EEOC Democratic control for the first time under the Biden administration, as she would fill the seat currently held by Janet Dhillon, a Republican appointee whose term expires on July 1.

    Kotagal is currently a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and is a member of the firm’s civil rights and employment practice group and chair of their hiring and diversity committee. In her time with Cohen Milstein, she has worked on several high-profile cases, including:

    • a class action lawsuit representing over 69,000 female employees against Sterling Jewelers alleging gender discrimination and Equal Pay Act violations — a case that may reach the Supreme Court; and
    • a class action against AT&T Mobility Services in which the company’s sales representatives allege that the company’s attendance and late policy amounts to pregnancy discrimination and violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act.

    Kotagal is also a co-author of the Inclusion Rider, which is a legal template that individuals in the entertainment industry can add to their contracts to demand diversity and inclusivity on projects. She and her co-authors drafted the rider and made it public so anyone in the industry can use it.

    In addition to her work with Cohen Milstein, Kotagal sits on the board of directors of A Better Balance, a nonprofit that litigates pregnancy discrimination claims and advocates for “supportive policies,” including paid sick, family and medical leave, fair scheduling and accessible, and quality childcare and education. She is also a board member for the Public Justice Foundation, a nonprofit focused on “high-impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the earth’s sustainability and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses.”

    Kotagal is also a co-chair of the alumni advisory board on equity and inclusion at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a member of the American Constitution Society Task Force on #MeToo in the legal profession, and serves on the advisory counsel of the People’s Parity Project, which focuses on reforming the legal system.

    CUPA-HR will monitor and keep members apprised of any updates to her nomination during the confirmation process.



    Source link

  • DOL to Host Regional Listening Sessions for Proposed Overtime Rule Regulations – CUPA-HR

    DOL to Host Regional Listening Sessions for Proposed Overtime Rule Regulations – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 7, 2022

    In the Biden administration’s fall 2021 regulatory agenda, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) announced that it planned to release in April 2022 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) changing criteria for the “executive, administrative and professional” exemptions from the overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In May and June, the DOL will host five regional listening sessions allowing stakeholders to discuss the anticipated proposed rule aimed at changing the exemptions to the federal overtime pay requirements.

    With listening sessions extending into May, the WHD will not be able to meet the April target date, but we do expect the agency will release a proposed rule in 2022 with compliance likely required in 2023. While the DOL has not shared how it may change the exemptions, it is holding listening sessions to elicit stakeholder input as to whether changes are appropriate and what changes would be appropriate at this time.

    Background

    According to the regulatory agenda, one of the goals of the NPRM would be “to update the salary level requirement of the section 13(a)(1) exemption [under the FLSA].” Changes to the overtime exemption minimum salary threshold have been proposed recently under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In 2016, President Obama’s DOL issued a final rule to increase the salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 per year and impose automatic updates to the threshold every three years, but the rule was subsequently struck down by federal court before taking effect in 2017. In 2019, the Trump administration issued a new final rule that raised the minimum salary threshold from $23,660 to $35,568 annually, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The $35,568 threshold remains in effect today.

    On March 29, in anticipation of the upcoming Biden administration rule, the DOL held a virtual higher education-specific listening session for D.C.-based higher education associations, including CUPA-HR. The listening session was scheduled after CUPA-HR and 14 other higher education associations submitted a request that the DOL hold such meetings prior to releasing the anticipated NPRM. CUPA-HR and several other higher education associations joined the session to discuss potential concerns institutions may have with an increase to the minimum salary threshold at this time.

    Regional Sessions

    In addition to the D.C. meeting held in March, the DOL is planning to host five additional regional listening sessions for employers. The sessions include the following:

    • Northeast Employers: May 13 at 3:30 p.m. EDT
    • Southeast Employers: May 17 at 2:00 p.m. EDT
    • Midwest Employers: May 20 at 3:30 p.m. EDT
    • Southwest Employers: May 27 at 3:00 p.m. EDT
    • West Employers: June 3 at 3:30 p.m. EDT

    If your institution is interested in participating in any of the regional meetings, please reach out to CUPA-HR’s Chief Government Relation Officer Josh Ulman at [email protected]. Additional information about the D.C. listening session and CUPA-HR’s talking points will be provided upon inquiry.



    Source link

  • House Passes Bipartisan Retirement Savings Bill – CUPA-HR

    House Passes Bipartisan Retirement Savings Bill – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 4, 2022

    On March 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2954, the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 414-5. The bill includes many provisions to boost individual retirement savings and expand coverage to better access retirement savings programs.

    The bill includes several provisions that would impact employer-sponsored retirement programs. Notably, the bill would make enrollment in newly created 401(k) and 403(b) plans mandatory for eligible employees beginning in 2024. Employers with 10 or fewer employees or those that have been in business for fewer than three years would be exempt from this requirement, and employees would be able to opt out of the program. Additionally, the bill requires employers to allow part-time employees to participate in 401(k) plans if they work at least 500 hours per year after two years working for the employer — a decrease from the previously required three years.

    The bill will also allow employers to make matching contributions to the 401(k), 403(b) or SIMPLE IRA account of employees who are paying off student loans and do not contribute enough to their accounts to receive a full employer match.

    In addition to the provisions related to employer plans, the bill also has provisions for individual workers. The bill allows older workers to make bigger contributions to their retirement accounts than is currently allowed. Specifically, individuals aged 62-64 would be able to contribute an extra $10,000 for 401(k) plans and other programs and $3,000 for SIMPLE plans per year to such accounts beginning in 2024. These “catch-up” contributions would be required to be made after taxes.

    The bill now heads to the Senate where it will need to pass with 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. Given the bipartisan support in the House, the bill could receive similar support from both parties, but it is unclear when and how the Senate will vote.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised as this bill moves through the Senate.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 21, 2022

    On February 17, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining plans to impose new HR-related conditions on USDA contracts. If finalized, the rule would require federal contractors on projects procured by the USDA to certify their compliance with dozens of federal and state labor laws and executive orders. The proposal mirrors similar “blacklisting” regulations pursued by the USDA during the Obama administration.

    The USDA provided only 32 days for stakeholders to submit comments on the proposal. CUPA-HR, along with several other higher education associations, filed an extension request with the department asking for an additional 90 days to “evaluate the NPRM’s impact on [members’] research missions and collect the information needed in order to provide thoughtful and accurate input to the USDA.” CUPA-HR plans to file comments on the proposal as well.

    The new proposed rulemaking amends the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) to require federal contractors on USDA supply and service projects that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold to certify that they and their subcontractors and suppliers are “in compliance with” 15 federal labor laws, their state equivalents and executive orders. This includes, but is not limited to:

    • Fair Labor Standards Act;
    • Occupational Safety and Health Act;
    • National Labor Relations Act;
    • Service Contract Act;
    • Davis-Bacon Act;
    • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act;
    • Americans with Disabilities Act;
    • Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and
    • Family and Medical Leave Act.

    Additionally, federal contractors submitting offers for a project would be required to disclose to the USDA previous violations and certify they and their subcontractors “are in compliance with” any required corrective actions for those violations. They would also be required to alert USDA to any future adjudications of non-compliance.

    In 2011, the USDA tried to implement a similar policy via a Direct Final Rule and NPRM, but was forced to withdraw both due to stakeholder pushback. CUPA-HR filed comments with the Society for Human Resource Management calling the rules arbitrary and capricious. Our comments also criticized the rules for not adequately clarifying how contractors were expected to comply with the changes and for imposing severe penalties. Additionally, CUPA-HR joined comments filed by the American Council on Education and several other higher education associations that argued the USDA’s rules “impose[d] an unmanageable compliance burden and uncertain compliance risk for colleges and universities that conduct agricultural research under contracts with the [USDA].”

    Additionally, the Obama administration issued an executive order in July 2014 implementing a similar government-wide policy. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council and the Department of Labor issued regulations and guidance, respectively, implementing the order, but they were blocked by a federal judge in October 2016 for violating the First Amendment and due process rights. Congress also passed a Congressional Review Act challenge to the executive order in 2017, permanently withdrawing the executive order and barring the FAR Council from issuing any substantially similar regulations.

    Unlike past proposals, this time the USDA has stated that the certifications will be subject to the False Claims Act (FCA), which provides for substantially increased liability. The FCA provides for treble damages and penalties and allows for private citizens to file suits on behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits). Qui tam litigants receive a portion of the government’s recovery. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the awards to qui tam litigants in FCA suits topped $238 million in 2021. The same DOJ statistics show qui tam suits were the majority of FCA claims, with the government filing 203 new suits under FCA in 2021 compared to 598 qui tam suits in the same year.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this issue closely.



    Source link

  • Supreme Court Issues Decision Regarding Retirement Plan Fiduciary Duties in Hughes v. Northwestern – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court Issues Decision Regarding Retirement Plan Fiduciary Duties in Hughes v. Northwestern – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 18, 2022

    On January 24, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, a case dealing with 403(b) retirement plan fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court criticized the standard applied by the lower courts and sent the case back to the 7th Circuit to reevaluate the plaintiffs’ allegations.

    In the case, the three plaintiffs, all current or former employees of the university, alleged the plan fiduciaries violated the duty of prudence standard under ERISA by “(1) failing to monitor and control recordkeeping fees, resulting in unreasonably high costs to plan participants; (2) offering mutual funds and annuities in the form of ‘retail’ share classes that carried higher fees than those charged for otherwise identical share classes (institutional share class) of the same investments; and (3) offering investment options that were likely to confuse investors.”

    In their decision, which was written by Justice Sotomayor, the court explained that, when determining if a plan fiduciary violated the duty of prudence standard under ERISA, courts must engage in “a context-specific inquiry of the fiduciaries’ continuing duty to monitor investments and to remove imprudent ones” as articulated in Supreme Court precedent, Tibble. The court said the 7th Circuit was wrong in concluding that by providing a choice of investment options, plan fiduciaries insulated themselves from liability claims. It is important to note that the court chose not to weigh in on the plausibility of the plaintiffs’ claims, only on the standard applied by the lower courts.

    CUPA-HR, along with 17 other higher education associations, participated in an amicus brief filed in the case. In the brief, we supported the 7th Circuit’s decision in favor of Northwestern University. We explained, “The question in this case is whether petitioners have pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty in administering a retirement plan” under ERISA, but the complaints in this case “overlook important features of the university retirement system and ignore the discretion ERISA affords to plan fiduciaries.” We also clarified that universities and plan fiduciaries “must have the flexibility o administer the plans based upon the particular needs and preferences of the plan participants, without constant second-guessing.”

    The 7th Circuit now has the opportunity to revisit the case. It may choose to dismiss much of the case or review the record again.

    Following the decision, our amicus briefing counsel was quoted saying, “Despite some of the early headlines that have already been written suggesting this case is a really big deal, in fact, I view this as a limited ruling… [T]he Supreme Court did not reach any specific or detailed conclusions that any of the investments offered by the defendants in this case are actually inappropriate, nor did the justices come down and say a fiduciary can never offer retail shares of funds within their institutional retirement plans. Instead, what they said, in a nutshell, is that the 7th Circuit simply did not give enough consideration of the duty-to-monitor precedents set by Tibble.”

    Importantly, the final sentence of the Supreme Court’s decision provided a silver lining; “At times, the circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate difficult tradeoffs, and courts must give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise.” The court here is clarifying that fiduciaries must be given due deference when making tough decisions.

    That being said, the decision could pave the way for more cases on fiduciary duties to be filed, as plaintiffs’ attorneys may take advantage of the potential opening in order to force settlements.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 9, 2022

    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.

    National College Players Association Files Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against the NCAA and Multiple Public and Private Colleges, Asserting College Basketball and Football Players Are Employees Under the NLRA

    The National College Players Association (NCPA), a non-profit advocacy group, has filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asserting that private and public universities, USC and UCLA, as well as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Pac-12 conference as joint employers have violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in refusing to treat college basketball and football players as employees. The NCPA hopes to convince the NLRB to rule that all division college basketball and football players at public and private colleges and universities are employees with collective bargaining rights.

    The current NLRB general counsel has stated publicly that she believes that student-athletes at private colleges and universities are employees subject to coverage under the NLRB. Nonetheless, the NLRB with jurisdiction over private colleges and universities has not yet ruled on the issue. The NCPA asserts that public colleges and universities will be covered because they are joint employers with the NCAA and the Pac-12 conference, both of which are private organizations subject to NLRB jurisdiction. This joint employer argument has not been ruled on by the NLRB in the past.

    U.S. Court of Appeals to Consider Whether Student-Athletes Are Employees Under the FLSA and Must Be Paid Minimum Wage and Overtime 

    Apart from the action described above concerning whether student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and therefore subject to unionization and mandatory collective bargaining, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland) will hear an appeal by colleges that the lawsuit by student-athletes seeking coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and minimum wage and overtime payments should not go to trial, but rather should be dismissed under current precedent. The lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania against the NCAA and several Division-I colleges.

    The federal trial court judge denied the NCAA’s and college’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that the case proceed to trial. The NCAA and colleges argued that the trial court judge’s decision contradicted the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana) and a California state court case ruling that the student-athletes are not employees under the FLSA (Johnson et, al v. NCAA et al (3rd Cir., Case no. 22-8003, 2/4/22)).

    Gymnastics Coach Claims Gender Bias and Sex Stereotype That Female Coaches Are Not Expected to Be As Aggressive as Their Male Counterparts as Reasons For Her Termination  

    A former Towson University gymnastics coach was terminated after the university received complaints from gymnastics team members claiming that her coaching techniques were discriminatory against Black team members, that she bullied team members into competing while injured and that she did not adequately feed the team. The coach claimed that the termination resulted from the sex stereotype that female coaches are not expected to be as aggressive as their male counterparts.

    The university countered that her discharge resulted from valid complaints by team members. The university also argued that it is the coach who is guilty of sex stereotyping with regard to her defense that female athletes are more likely to complain about her coaching practices than male athletes. The university also responded to the coach’s claim of pregnancy discrimination, arguing that the coach never explicitly advised the university that she was pregnant. The coach claimed that she was visibly pregnant at her last meeting with the university. The case is pending in federal district court in Maryland (May v. Towson University (Case no. 1:21-cv-02229, D. Md.)).

    Federal Court Rules School District Likely Violated Constitutional Rights of Three Paraprofessionals Who Were Prohibited From Wearing Black Lives Matter and Other Anti-Racism Messaging 

    A federal district court trial judge ruled in favor of three paraprofessional employees who were prohibited by their school district from wearing masks and other clothing with Black Lives Matter and other anti-racism messaging. The judge ruled that the school board’s actions “likely” violated First Amendment free speech rights (Fuller et al v. Warren County Educational Service Center et al (2022 BL 48702, S.D. Ohio 2/14/22)).

    The judge ruled that the school district must immediately lift its ban on any such controversial social or political messaging while the case is litigated further. The judge ruled that the employees’ messaging addresses a matter of public concern and they “spoke” as private citizens by making statements on Black Lives Matter and other related issues that are not within their job duties. The judge concluded that the school district did not demonstrate that the wearing of the material would disrupt school operations. While avoiding an emotional or violent outburst by a sensitive student body would justify the ban, the school district did not prove the likelihood of such a development. The judge also concluded that there was no evidence supporting the school district’s concerns, making them purely conjectural and outweighed by the free speech rights of the employees.

    Professor Files ADA and Rehab Act Discrimination Case Alleging His Heightened COVID-19 Risk Is a Disability and He Was Unfairly Denied a Reasonable Accommodation to Continue Teaching Remotely

    A former science professor at Georgia Military College sued the college’s board of directors in federal court after he was put on an unpaid suspension and ultimately terminated following the alleged denial of his accommodation request that would allow him to teach his classes remotely based on his doctor’s advice that he was of high risk for COVID-19 because of numerous conditions, including Crohn’s disease, kidney failure and anemia. The professor asked that he be allowed to continue teaching remotely as he had allegedly done for six months before the college asked most professors to resume teaching in person. The professor alleges that other professors were allowed to continue teaching remotely in small class situations, but he was denied his request because his class was very large due to the popularity of his teaching (Fields v. Board of Trustees of Georgia Military College and Georgia Military Prep School (M. Dist. Ga. 5-22-cv-00074)).

    The professor claimed that he was a former recipient of a teaching excellence award at the school and was treated “dismissively” in his denial of his accommodation request. He also claims he was allowed to teach remotely due to his disabilities in 2016, prior to the pandemic, and that is when he received the teaching excellence award. The college claimed it responded to his accommodation request by offering him two alternatives: return to teaching in person or take an unpaid leave of absence. The professor is seeking back pay, loss of employment benefits and three to five years of front pay. The professor claims job reinstatement is not feasible in these circumstances.



    Source link

  • National College Players Association Files Charges Seeking Employee Status for Student-Athletes – CUPA-HR

    National College Players Association Files Charges Seeking Employee Status for Student-Athletes – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 17, 2022

    On February 8, the National College Players Association (NCPA), an advocacy association for college athletes, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the University of Southern California, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the Pac-12 Conference and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

    The charges allege that the employers have violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ nonemployees” and “by maintaining unlawful rules and policies in its handbook, including restricting communications with third parties.” The charges mark the launch of the NCPA’s #JforJustice campaign and aim “to affirm college athlete employee status for every [Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)] football player and Division I basketball player at every public and private university in the nation,” per an NCPA statement.

    This is the latest development regarding issues surrounding employment status of student-athletes since NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo issued a memorandum last September stating her position that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and are therefore afforded all statutory protections as prescribed under the law. In that memo, Abruzzo stated that it was her intent to “educate the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences and the NCAA” about her position in future appropriate cases.

    The NCPA charges potentially provide Abruzzo with a case she can present to the NLRB to consider granting collective bargaining rights to college athletes. In 2015, the last time the NLRB considered the issue, it declined to assert jurisdiction over Northwestern football players, as doing so “would not promote labor stability [because the] board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities” that make up the majority of the FBS. The NCPA charge seeks to overcome this jurisdictional obstacle by including the privately-held Pac-12 and NCAA as joint employers of UCLA’s athletes — a theory of liability Abruzzo said she would consider applying in appropriate circumstances.

    Now that the charges have been filed, an NLRB regional director will review the case and determine whether formal action should be taken and presented to an administrative law judge, which would preside over a trial and issue a decision that could ultimately be taken up by the five-member board.

    CUPA-HR will be paying close attention to this case and provide members updates as it progresses.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 9, 2022

    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.

    U.S. Supreme Court to Review Harvard and UNC Affirmative Action Admission Policies In Consolidated Case 

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear and review two cases challenging the affirmative action admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The Supreme Court will hear an hour of argument over both court of appeals decisions, which have concluded that the respective affirmative action plans were legal. In the past, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that college and university admission related affirmative action plans were legal since 1978 in the Bakke decision.

    The composition of the Supreme Court has changed significantly since the last time it ruled that affirmative action in college admissions was legal in 2018 in the University of Texas at Austin case. The argument will be heard in the October 2022 term with a decision likely to be made in 2023. CUPA-HR will follow and report on future developments.

    Court of Appeals Allows a Former Teaching Assistant’s Complaint Alleging Male Bias In Title IX Investigation to Proceed 

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Arizona) ruled that a former Chinese national teaching assistant — who lost his job and student visa to stay in the U.S. after a Title IX investigation found that he was in violation of the school’s dating guidelines — can proceed with his own Title IX suit against the university, alleging that the investigation was biased against him as a male (Doe v. University of California (9th Cir. No. 20-55831. 1/11/22)). The plaintiff, who had prevailed in a state court proceeding challenging the disciplinary decision, nonetheless lost his housing, job, student visa and the ability to complete his doctorate.

    The plaintiff had broken off his engagement to a student who he was dating after learning she had been unfaithful to him. She came unannounced to his office, confronted him and blocked his exit when he said he had to leave to teach a class. The plaintiff eventually got around the student to leave, but the student called the campus police claiming that he pushed her and grabbed her arm, and she filed a Title IX complaint. During the investigation, an investigator told the plaintiff, “No female had ever fabricated allegations against a former boyfriend in a Title IX setting.” The plaintiff also alleged that during the two-year time period, the overwhelming majority of Title IX claims were against males and that no female was ever given a two-year suspension in circumstances like his. The court of appeals concluded that given these facts, the plaintiff’s claims should proceed to trial.

    NLRB General Counsel Reiterates Call for NLRB to Issue Make-Whole Remedies, Including Emotional Distress Damages for Employer Unfair Labor Practice Violations

    Jennifer Abruzzo, the Biden administration appointee as general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), has reiterated her request that the NLRB expand its remedy policies for employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act’s unfair labor practice provisions, including discrimination against union members, to include “make-whole” remedies, which would include emotional distress damages. The general counsel announced her initial request in September 2021. Abruzzo followed up the September 2021 request in a legal brief filed with the NLRB on January 10, 2022 arguing that the NLRB remedies are “feeble” and allow employer’s to violate the Act because it is cheaper do so without facing the consequence of make-whole remedies.

    Current NLRB remedies are limited to employment reinstatement, back pay awards and posting of notices that the employer violated the Act. Business groups filed a brief on January 10, 2022, which also opposes the general counsel’s request, arguing that the NLRB lacks authority under the Act to impose make-whole remedies. CUPA-HR will follow this litigation and report the result in a future blog post.

    U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Football Coach’s First Amendment Claim of Protected Mid-Field Prayer Denied By the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

    The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari (cert) and will hear an appeal of a Washington state football coach whose claim to a First Amendment right to kneel and pray at the 50-yard line after each game was denied by the Ninth Circuit (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Montana and Idaho) (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (U.S. No. 21-418, cert granted 1/14/22)). The Bremerton School District suspended the coach after he refused to cease his weekly ritual of kneeling and praying at the 50-yard line after each game. The Ninth Circuit denied the First Amendment claim, holding that the coach’s public statements about his prayer activities belied his argument that is was a private religious act and evidenced his attempts to proselytize his religious beliefs. As such, allowing it to continue would violate the school district’s/government’s duty not to support any particular religion.

    The coach argued that the decision, if left standing, would virtually transform speech of a public employee into government speech, lacking any First Amendment protection. The school district argued against cert, claiming that it had given the coach an accommodation to pray before or after the game in the press box or anywhere else where he would not be surrounded by his team. The coach insisted on being able to pray at mid-field before the team and spectators had cleared the field. CUPA-HR will follow this case and report on the ultimate decision.

    COVID-19 Spousal Death May Be a Way Around Workers’ Compensation Defense to Employer Liability for Some COVID-19 Cases Contracted at Work 

    A California appellate court recently refused to dismiss a case filed by an employee who claimed her husband contracted and died of COVID-19, which she contracted from working on the employer’s assembly line (See’s Candies, Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. County (2021 BL 485084, Cal. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. No. B312241,12/21/21)). The appeals court rejected the company’s argument that the husband’s death was a “derivative” injury of the employee’s injury/illness contracted at work and therefore barred by the workers’ compensation prohibition of individual lawsuits. This is a new area of the law and the cases popping up elsewhere may come to a different result. CUPA-HR will follow the issue as case law develops.

    U.S. Union Membership Among American Workers Declines to Record Low in 2021

    The percentage of American workers who are union members declined to 10.3 percent in 2021 to match its record low percentage of 2019. While union membership increased in 2020, the percentage dropped 0.5 percent in 2021 to the 2019 percentage according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2021, the number of union members declined to 14 million while the number of overall workers increased. The percentage of American workers who are union members has declined significantly since 1984 when approximately 20 percent of the U. S. workforce was unionized.



    Source link