Category: Compliance/Legal Issues

  • DOL Issues Report on Coercive Contractual Provisions

    DOL Issues Report on Coercive Contractual Provisions

    by CUPA-HR | October 22, 2024

    On October 17, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of the Solicitor (SOL) issued a Special Enforcement Report on “coercive contractual provisions.” The report lists several provisions they have seen included in employment contracts that the department believes “may discourage workers from exercising their rights under worker protection laws.” The report demonstrates recent actions taken by SOL to combat such provisions, but it does not include new enforcement actions against employers that use these provisions.

    In the report, SOL claims the provisions discussed are coercive, violate the law and have significant impacts on the most vulnerable workers. The report details seven types of contractual provisions they find especially concerning:

    1. Contractual provisions requiring workers to waive statutory protections, including those requiring workers to waive their rights to bring claims and recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
    2. Contractual provisions that purport to require employees to agree that they are independent contractors
    3. Indemnification-type provisions and related counterclaims purporting to shift liability for legal violations to workers or other entities
    4. “Loser pays” provisions attempting to require employees to pay the employer’s attorney’s fees and costs if the employees do not prevail in litigation or arbitration
    5. “Stay or pay” provisions, including some training repayment assistance provisions, that purport to require workers to pay damages to their employer for leaving a contract early
    6. Confidentiality, non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions
    7. Company policies that purport to require workers to report safety concerns to their employer before contacting any government agencies

    The report emphasizes that the Department of Labor is “not bound by private contracts or arbitration agreements between workers and employers” and thus “has a unique role to play in fighting the use of these ‘fine print’ or ‘coercive’ contractual provisions.” It provides examples of cases where the courts have found such agreements unenforceable or where DOL has pursued an injunction in federal court seeking an order blocking one or more contract provisions.

    Importantly, the report is largely a restatement of current law and, for the most part, does not outline new enforcement actions against employers for using these provisions. Instead, the report outlines the work SOL has done recently to fight against the coercive contractual provisions, including cases and amicus briefs filed against employers using such business practices.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for additional resources from the Department of Labor that may impact contractual labor provisions.



    Source link

  • Department of Labor Publishes AI Framework for Hiring Practices

    Department of Labor Publishes AI Framework for Hiring Practices

    by CUPA-HR | October 16, 2024

    On September 24, the Department of Labor (DOL), along with the Partnership on Employment & Accessible Technology (PEAT), published the AI & Inclusive Hiring Framework. The framework is intended to be a tool to support the inclusive use of artificial intelligence in employers’ hiring technology, specifically for job seekers with disabilities.

    According to DOL, the framework was created in support of the Biden administration’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. Issued in October 2023, the executive order directed the Secretary of Labor, along with other federal agency officials, to issue guidance and regulations to address the use and deployment of AI and other technologies in several policy areas. Notably, it also directed DOL to publish principles and best practices for employers to help mitigate harmful impacts and maximize potential benefits of AI as it relates to employees’ well-being.

    The new AI Framework includes 10 focus areas that cover issues impacting the recruitment and hiring of people with disabilities and contain information on maximizing the benefit of using and managing the risks associated with assessing, acquiring and employing AI hiring technology.

    The 10 focus areas are:

    1. Identify Employment and Accessibility Legal Requirements
    2. Establish Roles, Responsibilities and Training
    3. Inventory and Classify the Technology
    4. Work with Responsible AI Vendors
    5. Assess Possible Positive and Negative Impacts
    6. Provide Accommodations
    7. Use Explainable AI and Provide Notices
    8. Ensure Effective Human Oversight
    9. Manage Incidents and Appeals
    10. Monitor Regularly

    Under each focus area, DOL and PEAT provide key practices and considerations for employers to implement as they work through the AI framework. It is important to note, however, that the framework does not have force of law and that employers do not need to implement every practice or goal for every focus area at once. The goal of the framework is to lead employers to inclusive practices involving AI technology over time.

    DOL encourages HR personnel — along with hiring managers, DEIA practitioners, and others — to familiarize themselves with the framework. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any future updates relating to the use of AI in hiring practices and technology.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — October 2024

    HR and the Courts — October 2024

    by CUPA-HR | October 15, 2024

    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.

    NCAA & Power Conferences Receive Preliminary Approval of Name, Image and Likeness and Anti-Trust Settlement — Ivies Win Dismissal of Anti-Trust Lawsuit

    A federal district court judge has given preliminary approval to the NCAA and Power Conferences’ revised $2.8 billion settlement proposal to be paid to college athletes over 10 years. The judge set a fairness hearing for April 2025, with all objections to be filed by January 31, 2025. The federal judge in the Northern District of California concluded that the revised settlement was “fair, reasonable and adequate” (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Ca. No. 4:20-cv-03919, 10/7/24)).

    Commentators immediately voiced concerns that the settlement addresses a small group of male athletes in specific sports to the disadvantage of female athletes. In addition, a number of Division I athletes may express objection on the grounds that the settlement continues to give the NCAA too much control over the free market compensation for student-athletes.

    Separately, the eight Ivy League institutions won a dismissal of a federal lawsuit that claimed their ban on athletic scholarships violated anti-trust laws. The federal district court judge assigned to the case granted the Ivy League’s motion for summary judgement, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any properly defined market and therefore failed to allege market wide anti-competitive effects (Choh v. Brown University, et. al. (D. Conn. No. 3:23-cv-00305, 10/10/24)).

    University of Louisville School of Medicine Loses First Amendment Retaliation Claim Brought by Terminated Professor

    A former professor at the University of Louisville School of Medicine will receive a trial over his First Amendment retaliation claims regarding statements he made about gender dysphoria to a conservative think tank. Following comments he made during an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, the former medical school professor was demoted and his annual contract was not renewed. The professor expressed the view that gender dysphoria in children “is a sociocultural, psychological phenomenon that cannot be fully addressed with drugs and surgery.”

    The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the university officials who terminated Allan M. Josephson should have known that he was engaged in protected speech, and that terminating him would violate his First Amendment rights. Moreover, the court ruled that the professor’s outside speech was not part of his professorial duties, and therefore subject to his First Amendment claims. The court concluded that a trial is necessary, as there are facts in dispute regarding the rationale for the actions taken against the professor (Josephson v. Ganzel (6th Cir., No. 23-05293, 9/10/24)).

    Tenured Professor Loses Defamation Case Against Harvard

    A federal district court judge partially dismissed a noted behavioral scientist’s $25 million defamation and breach-of-contract lawsuit against Harvard University. Professor Francesca Gino was placed on administrative leave following claims of data fraud in her research. Gino claimed that the university’s notice on her faculty page that she had been placed on administrative leave after conducting an investigation of her research was libelous because the university acted with ill will.

    The court concluded that the professor was a “public figure” and therefore faces a higher standard for proving defamation. A public figure in these circumstances can only prove defamation if the alleged defamer had knowledge that their statement was untrue or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Moreover, the court concluded that the issue of “research integrity and potential misconduct” is one of public concern, adding to the reason for the dismissal of the defamation claim (Gino v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. No. 1:23-cv-11775, 9/11/24)).

    Regarding the professor’s breach-of-contract claims, the professor alleged that the university’s decision to place her on administrative leave and its related disciplinary sanctions were the same as tenure removal. The judge concluded that it is premature to rule on the breach-of-contract claims.

    Public School Employees Lose Free Speech Case Challenging Anti-Racism Training

    In a case with possible application to public higher ed training, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by two Missouri public school employees who claimed that anti-bias employee training violated their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit failed because the court concluded that they were never asked to leave nor were they disciplined for expressing contrary views and that they received professional development credit for attending the anti-racism training (Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District (8th Cir No. 2301374, 9/12/24)).

    The decision provides some clarity on such training, as the court noted that the employees were not compelled to express certain views or refrain from expressing certain views during the training. The appellate court did reverse the trial judge’s ruling requiring the plaintiffs to pay $300,000 in attorney fees for filing a frivolous claim.

    Former Student’s Title IX Claim Dismissed as Alleged University Internship Did Not Exist

    A federal district court judge dismissed allegations of a sexually abusive internship at the University of Michigan because the plaintiff could not prove the internship actually existed. The court noted that none of the usual formalities, such as an application or a university authorization of an internship, were established.

    In light of this, the court dismissed the Title IX claims and allegations of failure to investigate sex harassment and abuse allegations as the plaintiff did not allege discrimination while “participating in or at least attempting to participate in” a university program or activity, as the internship did not exist. The University of Michigan prevailed in the case (Doe v. Baum ((2024 BL 340244 E.D. Mich. No. 4-21-cv-12492, 9/26/24)).

    University of Texas Professor Loses First Amendment Complaint

    A federal district judge dismissed a University of Texas professor’s First Amendment claim that his speech was “chilled” by unspecific threats following comments critical of “critical race theory and DEI-based ideology.” The judge dismissed the case, holding that the unspecific threats did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action (Lowery v. Mills ((W.D. Tex. No. 1:23-cv-00129, 10/2/24)).

    The judge ruled in favor of the University of Texas McCombs School of Business. The judge noted in a footnote, however, that the dismissal was not meant to approve of the university’s actions and that “in the context of a world-class university like UT, differences of opinion should be tolerated by those in authority, no matter that they are uncomfortable, so long as they do not incite violence or disrupt the school’s ability to function as a teaching institution.”

    Supreme Court to Review Split in Circuits Regarding Higher Ed ERISA Lawsuit

    The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments over the split in circuit courts of appeals as to when a university may be sued by employees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Employees of Cornell University alleged that improper service provider fees were charged to their pension fund. They are appealing an adverse 2nd Circuit decision stating employees must plead that the alleged “prohibited transaction” by the service provider involved either “unnecessary services” or the fees were “unreasonable” (Cunningham v. Cornell University (US No. 23-1007 cert granted 10/4/24)).

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the 3rd Circuit, the 7th Circuit, and the 10th Circuit all require the additional pleading that alleges some kind of fraud or impropriety in order to allow the case to move forward. This contrasts with the 8th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, which apply the “ERISA-as-written” rule. That rule allows a plaintiff to simply allege that a transaction between an employer and a pension or welfare plan service provider occurred and proceed with discovery over whether fraud or some other impropriety exists. We will follow developments in this case as it proceeds.



    Source link

  • Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    by CUPA-HR | September 12, 2024

    On September 11, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor that upholds DOL’s authority to implement a minimum salary threshold to determine exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. While the ruling does not answer how other lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s rule will be decided, the ruling is significant and could help other federal judges determine whether or not to strike down the Biden administration’s increased minimum salary thresholds.

    Background

    The case’s plaintiff, Robert Mayfield, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s overtime rule in August 2022. In his lawsuit, he argued that the FLSA language on overtime exemptions only mentions a worker’s job-related duties and that implementing a salary threshold to determine exempt status exceeds DOL’s statutory authority. The Western District Court of Texas, a lower court where the lawsuit was originally filed, sided with DOL, stating that the agency has the statutory authority to implement the FLSA overtime minimum salary threshold. Mayfield appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit soon after.

    The Decision

    In its decision that sides with the Department of Labor, the 5th Circuit Court held that DOL may use a minimum salary requirement as part of its test for determining whether or not an employee qualifies as an executive, administrative and professional (EAP) employee exempt from the FLSA overtime pay requirements. Notably, the 5th Circuit Court argued that DOL does have statutory authority under the FLSA to use a salary threshold to “define and delimit the terms of exemption.”

    Though the decision allows for DOL to use a minimum salary threshold, the 5th Circuit Court did state that there is a limit to the power granted to DOL to do so. Specifically, the decision states that DOL may only use the minimum salary requirement to the extent that the salary threshold established in the regulations is a reasonable proxy for who is and who is not an EAP employee. They argued that DOL’s power to rely on proxy is not “unbounded” and that the agency “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s terms that they seek to define.

    Looking Ahead

    Outside of the Mayfield case, there are three pending lawsuits in the Eastern District Court of Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s overtime final rule. That rule implements a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA. The first increase took effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year), and the second increase is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, increasing the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year).

    The decision from the 5th Circuit does not have an immediate impact on the lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule, nor does it provide a definitive answer on how lower courts decide in those legal challenges. As such, the Biden administration’s July 1 salary threshold continues to be in effect,* and the second increase to the salary threshold is still set to take effect on January 1, 2025. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates related to the FLSA overtime pay regulations.

    *A preliminary injunction to block DOL from enforcing the overtime final rule was placed for public employees in the state of Texas. Private institutions in Texas and all other institutions outside of Texas need to be in compliance with the July 1 salary threshold.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — September 2024

    HR and the Courts — September 2024

    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.

    Fired Professor Who Praised Hitler Loses Free Speech Retaliation Lawsuit

    The New Jersey Institute of Technology prevailed in a federal lawsuit brought by a former philosophy lecturer alleging retaliatory discharge. The professor’s employment agreement was not renewed after a New York Times article exposed his involvement in the “alt-right” (a far-right, white nationalist movement), including his praising Adolph Hitler as a “great European leader” and linking IQ to race. In dismissing the lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the professor’s speech disrupted, and would likely continue disrupting, the university’s administration and interfered with the university’s mission (Jorjani v. N.J. Inst. of Technology ((D.N.J. No. 2:18-cv-11693, Jud entered 7/31/24)).

    The judge held that public employers can restrict the speech of employees without violating the First Amendment when necessary to maintain effective and efficient operations. The judge also emphasized that the university did not need to wait for protests and demonstrations in order to show disruptions in operations before acting.

    NLRB: Private Colleges and Universities Must Bargain With Unions Representing Student Employees Over FERPA-Protected Information

    On August 6, 2024, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a memo acknowledging the potential conflict between the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regarding union requests for personal information about student employees. The NLRB general counsel concluded that colleges and universities in this situation must bargain with the applicable union over disclosure of such information and explain why the information request would violate FERPA.

    Further, the NLRB concluded that the college or university can bargain with the union over the distribution of FERPA waivers to applicable student employees but that asking the union to hand out such waivers would be unreasonable and a violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith because the union does not have the student contact information. The general counsel concluded that the college or university should hand out the waivers when the union does not have the student employees’ contact information.

    Proposed $2.8 Billion NCAA Settlement on Hold as Some Student-Athletes Object

    Some student-athletes claiming the NCAA artificially capped the size of college athlete scholarships too low, as well as those pursuing fair-pay claims, objected to the $2.8 billion proposed settlement of the NCAA and the Power Five conferences antitrust case. Plaintiffs in these two areas are asking the Northern District of California court to carve out their claims from the proposed settlement so that they can pursue individual claims in further litigation. The federal judge overseeing the matter questioned the proposed settlement and concluded that the settlement needed a better explanation of damages and a clearer understanding of how much each class member can expect to gain (In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal. No. 4:20-cv-3919. Brief filed 8/9/24, Fontenot v. NCAA D. Colo. No. 1:23-cv-03076, and Cornelio v. NCAA D. Colo. No. 1:24-cv-02178)).

    Two former Brown University student-athletes have dropped their objection, concluding it will not preclude them from proceeding separately in an antitrust claim against the Ivy League. The two former men’s and women’s basketball players have alleged separately that the Ivies have engaged in an illegal agreement which raised the price of an Ivy League education by illegally suppressing compensation for their services. They alleged that Brown only provided them with need-based assistance that did not cover the full cost of their education.

    Boston University Graduate Workers Strike Is Longest in the Last Decade

    Lasting over 150 days, the Boston University graduate workers strike is the longest student employee strike in the last decade, according to the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, located at the City University of New York’s Hunter College. The BU strike, which began on March 25, eclipses a similar work stoppage of 147 days at the University of Michigan in 2023. An unauthorized “wildcat” strike at the University of California, Santa Cruz may have lasted longer but the National Center points out that strike was unauthorized by the applicable union. The center concludes that this is part of the significant increase in unionization of both undergraduate and graduate student workers that has occurred over the past few years.

    The Boston University graduate workers formed their union in December 2022. The union is still engaged in efforts to secure their first collective bargaining agreement. September 3 will be the beginning of the second semester in which the grad student workers are striking. Teaching and regular higher education functions have continued at the university, though some interference with regular activities has been reported.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 19, 2024

    On August 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s request to partially overturn preliminary injunctions from lower courts that block the Department of Education from enforcing the administration’s April 2024 Title IX final rule. The decision leaves the preliminary injunctions from the lower district courts in place, preventing the new Title IX rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states.

    Background

    Shortly after the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was published, over two dozen states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the rule. Over the course of the summer, decisions from lower district courts across the country placed preliminary injunctions on the final rule, leading to the blocking of the final rule in 26 states, as well as at hundreds of schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United and Moms for Liberty are in attendance.*

    After several preliminary injunctions were issued, the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court with an emergency request asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts. Specifically, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to only block provisions of the Title IX final rule related to gender identity, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students. The Biden administration had hoped that by limiting the scope of the preliminary injunctions, other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements would be able to take effect on August 1.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s plea to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions, leaving in place the lower courts’ rulings. The majority opinion stated that the Biden administration did not provide a strong enough argument to sway the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, and they argued that the gender identity provisions the Biden administration had hoped to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    Looking Ahead

    With the Supreme Court’s decision, the preliminary injunctions from the lower courts are still in place. Further decisions from the district courts on the legality of the final rule are still pending. The Title IX rule could return to the Supreme Court in the future, however, depending on how lower courts rule on the legality of the final rule and whether those decisions are appealed.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the legal challenges against the Biden administration’s Title IX rule.

    *The 26 states where the rule is blocked from being enforced by the Department of Education are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The final rule is also blocked from taking effect at hundreds of colleges and universities across the country, including in states that did not challenge the Title IX final rule. A list of those schools can be found here.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — August 2024 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — August 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 14, 2024

    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.

    Student-Athletes and NCAA Propose a $2.8 Billion Settlement in Antitrust and Name, Image and Likeness Case

    Attorneys representing student-athletes have filed for court approval of a $2.8 billion settlement reached with the NCAA and the Power Five conferences. Bloomberg reports that the student-athletes were pursuing a $4.5 billion claim.

    Under the proposed settlement, a men’s football or basketball player would receive roughly $135,000 and a female basketball player would receive roughly $35,000. Athletes in other Division I sports, including football and basketball players in non-Power Five conferences, would also recover under the proposed settlement, although the terms of that recovery are not yet clear.

    Also under the proposed settlement, Division I schools will be able to provide student-athletes with direct payment up to a cap of 22% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenue per year. The payment pool will be more than $20 million per school in the 2025-26 academic year and will grow from there. The Power Five includes the Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Southeastern Conference and Pac-12. (The Pac-12 lost its autonomy status for 2024-25 after 10 of 12 of its members departed for other conferences.) The proposed settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-03919, 7/26/24)).

    It is reported that the multibillion-dollar settlement would be paid out over 10 years. A preliminary approval hearing will take place in September to be followed by a comment period from class members. If approval is reached it will spare the NCAA and the Power Five from a trial scheduled to take place in January, 2025.

    Employee Status of Student-Athletes Under the FLSA Still Undecided as Court Rejects NCAA’s Appeal

    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands) rejected the appeal of the NCAA contesting the trial court decision that college athletes are entitled to a trial to decide whether they are employees under the FLSA.

    The appeals court remanded the case back to the trial judge for more analysis on the applicable standard to be used in determining whether a student-athlete is an employee. The decision allows the college athletes to continue to pursue their claims, which allege that the NCAA and colleges are joint employers (Johnson V. NCAA (3rd Cir. No. 22-01223, 7/11/24)).

    The decision contrasts with the former holdings of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 9th Circuit, which rejected claims that student-athletes were employees. In remanding the case back for further analysis, the 3rd Circuit left room for the court to hold that some college athletes maintain their amateur, non-employee status while others are employees subject to the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA.

    The decision also rejected the term “student-athlete,” commenting that the term is an “NCAA marketing invention” designed to “conjure up the nobility of amateurism,” assert “the precedence of scholarship over athletics,” and “obfuscate the nature of the legal relationship at the heart of a growing commercial enterprise.” The decision stated that college athletes “cannot be barred as a matter of law from asserting FLSA claims simply by virtue of the revered tradition of amateurism.” Finally, the court remanded the case to the trial judge to use common-law factors, such as level of control and presence of payments, to determine the employee status of college athletes.

    Unionization Petitions Filed With NLRB Increase by 30% in 2024 — Decertification Petitions Increase by 12%

    Petitions filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to both certify and decertify union representation are up dramatically so far this year.

    The increase in certification petitions is partially attributed to the NLRB’s decision in the Cemex decision. That decision requires employers, in response to a certification petition, to either voluntarily recognize the union or file an RM, which is used by employers to dispute that the union has majority status. The increase in activity also comes after the NLRB altered its administrative procedures to shorten the time between petition filing and the election.

    The NLRB also reports that its regional offices have conducted more representation elections so far in 2024 than in the entire 2023 fiscal year. Finally, the NLRB reports that unions have won 79% of union-filed petitions and 70% of employer-filed petitions.

    EEOC Signals Second Attempt to Require Employers to Report Pay Data by Race, Sex and Job Category

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has indicated in its July regulatory playbook that it intends to make another attempt to require that employers annually report pay data by race, sex and job category. Its first attempt to do so was canceled by court intervention in 2016 during the Obama administration.

    The EEOC indicated it will use the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as opposed to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to issue the new regulations. Under the APA, advance notice, including a comment period, is required. Also under the APA, an individual or organization has the private right of action to block the regulation.

    The recent Supreme Court decision in the Chevron case may make such APA challenges easier to manage for employers and employer organizations seeking to challenge the new attempt to collect pay data. In the Chevron case, the Supreme Court abandoned the rule of the presumption of legitimacy of federal agency decisions.

    Court Concludes NLRB Failed to Explain Why It Rejected Employer Objections in Union Election  

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the NLRB failed to coherently explain its rejection of employer election objections when the NLRB certified a union in a one-vote victory in a mail ballot election.

    The D.C. Circuit court concluded that the NLRB used different legal tests without explanation when it rejected an employer’s objections to the mail ballot election (GHG Mgmt LLC V. NLRB (DC Cir. No, 22-01312, 7/9/24)).

    The court ruled in a unanimous, three-judge decision that the NLRB failed to adequately explain its rejection of employer objections and remanded the case back to the NLRB for determination over which test it used to reject the employer’s objections. The court stated it can only rule on whether the NLRB’s decision was correct if it knows which test the NLRB used in coming to its decision. This case is another criticism of the NLRB’s handling of mail-in ballot elections used during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Federal Judge Temporarily Rejects Texas AG’s Attempt to Block EEOC Guidance on LGBTQ+ Employees

    A federal district trial judge has temporarily rejected the Texas attorney general’s attempt to block current EEOC guidance that covers LGBTQ+ employees. The guidance protects employees’ right to choose pronouns and bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.

    The federal judge dismissed the case, holding that the Texas attorney general must file a new case and not rely on the past decision in which the federal judge vacated similar EEOC regulations protecting LGBTQ+ employees (State of Texas V. EEOC (N.D. Tex. No. 2-21-cv-00194, 7/17/24)).

    The judge ruled that his prior decision in favor of the Texas attorney general vacating prior EEOC LGBTQ+ regulations can be used as a predicate for a new case. Nonetheless, the Texas attorney general must file a new case seeking new injunctive relief. The federal judge explained that his prior decision addressed the EEOC’s 2021 guidance alone and a new case must be filed to adjudicate the issues involved in the new EEOC guidance.



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Memo Outlining Higher Ed Institutions’ Disclosure Obligations under NLRA and FERPA – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Memo Outlining Higher Ed Institutions’ Disclosure Obligations under NLRA and FERPA – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 7, 2024

    On August 6, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo, “Clarifying Universities’ and Colleges’ Disclosure Obligations under the National Labor Relations Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.” The memo was issued to all NLRB regional offices and is meant to provide guidance to institutions of higher education clarifying their obligations “in cases involving the duty to furnish information where both statutes may be implicated.”

    The memorandum outlines how institutions can comply with requests by unions representing their student workers for information that may be covered under FERPA, the federal law that protects students’ privacy in relation to their education records and applies to institutions that receive federal education funds. Under the NLRA, employers are required to provide certain information to unions that may be relevant to their representational and collective bargaining obligations, but this requirement can come into conflict with institutions’ obligations under FERPA.

    In situations where the employer believes certain records requested by the union may be confidential and covered under FERPA, the memo outlines the steps institutions must take to comply with their disclosure obligations.

    1. “The institution must determine whether the request seeks education records or personally identifiable information contained therein.”

    Institutions must be prepared to “explain why and substantiate with documentary evidence, if available, that the student-employee is employed as a result of their status as a student to the union,” as opposed to a traditional employee whose records are not protected by FERPA. The memo specifies that, if the union’s request includes some documents not covered by FERPA, the employer must provide those documents to the union “without delay, even if FERPA applies to other parts of the request.”

    1. “If a request seeks information protected by FERPA, the institution must offer a reasonable accommodation in a timely manner and bargain in good faith with the union toward a resolution of the matter.”

    The memo puts the burden to offer an alternative on the employer. The employer cannot “simply refuse to furnish the requested information,” but it must offer a “reasonable accommodation and bargain in good faith toward an agreement that addresses both parties’ interests.”

    1. “If the parties reach an agreement over an accommodation, the institution must abide by that agreement and furnish the records.”

    If an agreement is not reached, the memo specifies that the union can file an unfair labor practice charge against the institution. The memo then gives the NLRB the authority to find an appropriate accommodation “in light of the parties’ bargaining proposals.”

    Abruzzo also provided a “FERPA consent template” that she advocates institutions provide to student-employees during the onboarding process. The template, if signed by the student employee, “would permit an institution covered by FERPA to disclose to a union, consistent with FERPA, any employment-related records of a student that are relevant and reasonably necessary for each stage of the representation process.” Abruzzo argues the template would help “reduce delay and obviate the need to seek students’ consent at the time a union seeks to represent employees or submits an information request to carry out its representative functions.”

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates following this guidance and other updates from the NLRB.



    Source link

  • Title IX Rule Goes Into Effect in 24 States – CUPA-HR

    Title IX Rule Goes Into Effect in 24 States – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 1, 2024

    On August 1, the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule goes into effect, implementing new requirements for compliance with Title IX for institutions of higher education. However, ongoing legal challenges have blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states, as well as at certain institutions in states that have not sued the Department of Education (ED).

    Background

    On April 19, ED released the text of the highly anticipated Title IX final rule. The final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions, and it implements new training requirements for employees and grievance procedures for handling reported cases of sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment. To provide members with an overview of the final rule, CUPA-HR held a webinar in April, which was recorded and can be accessed for free.

    Lawsuits

    Shortly after the rule was published, over 20 Republican-led states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the final rule. The lawsuits sought to block ED from implementing and enforcing the final rule, though most of them homed in on concerns with expanding Title IX protections to transgender individuals through the expanded protections against discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity.

    From mid-June through the end of July, federal judges across the country granted preliminary injunctions to the states and advocacy groups challenging the rule, meaning the Department of Education is blocked from enforcing the new Title IX rule on the August 1 effective date. All 26 states that sued ED for the Title IX rule were ultimately granted injunctive relief. Additionally, a decision from the U.S. District Court of Kansas expanded the preliminary injunction to include schools attended by members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty. This means that ED cannot enforce the new Title IX rule at certain schools in the 24 states that didn’t challenge the rule, as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

    The Biden administration has appealed to the Supreme Court on the decisions granting the preliminary injunctions. In its emergency request, the administration is asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunction to only block provisions related to gender identity. It argued that the lower court’s decisions to grant preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students, and it hopes that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements can go into effect. A decision from the Supreme Court on the emergency request has not yet been issued.

    Looking Ahead

    Though ED is blocked from enforcing the new Title IX rule in 26 states, litigation continues in the lower courts where decisions have been issued on whether to strike down the rule. If the rule is struck down, the Biden administration is likely to appeal the decision, though it is unknown whether a decision will be released before the election and potential change in administration. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates to the legal challenges against the Title IX final rule.

     



    Source link

  • Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 11, 2024

    On July 5, the Biden administration released the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Action (Regulatory Agenda), providing insights on regulatory and deregulatory activity under development across more than 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. The Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the first of two that will be released during the calendar year, and it sets target dates for regulatory actions in the coming months.

    CUPA-HR’s government relations team reviews each Regulatory Agenda that is released and has put together the following list of noteworthy regulations included in the current edition.

    Department of Education

    Office for Civil Rights – Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnicity in Response to EO 13899 on Combating Anti-Semitism and EO 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is targeting December 2024 for the release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OCR’s enforcement responsibilities for cases involving discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR is issuing this NPRM in response to a 2019 Trump Executive Order (EO) and a 2021 Biden EO.

    The NPRM has become a higher priority for OCR, given the recent political activity on campus related to the war in Gaza and related scrutiny from Congressional Republicans of higher education’s response to protests on campus. In the Regulatory Agenda announcement, OCR explains the need for this rulemaking by stating that they have “received complaints of harassment and assaults directed at Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other students based on their shared ancestry or ethnicity.”

    Office for Civil Rights – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Biden administration has pushed its final rule on transgender students’ participation in athletic programs to its “long-term actions,” with an undetermined date for when the final rule will be published. In the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda, the final rule was previously targeted for March 2024.

    OCR released an NPRM on this topic in April 2023. 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 explained 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 move to push the final rule to “long-term actions” with an undetermined publication date is likely a result of recent challenges to the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule and the upcoming election. Shortly after the Title IX rule was published, over two dozen states joined lawsuits challenging the regulations, with many citing the inclusion of protections for gender identity and sexual orientation as top concerns with the final rule. Since then, the Title IX final rule has been blocked from going into effect on August 1 in 14 states.

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

    Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

    In December 2024, the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) anticipate releasing a final rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) on pay equity and transparency in federal contracting.

    The joint agencies published a pay equity and transparency NPRM in January 2024. In the NPRM, the agencies propose to amend the FAR to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”), and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose on job announcements the compensation to be offered (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    As part of its justification for publishing the NPRM, the proposal noted that 21 states, 22 localities, and Washington, D.C., have put bans into place that prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary, and 10 states have pay transparency laws in place, with several other states working toward implementing such laws.

    Department of Homeland Security

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) anticipates releasing at least one more final rule to modernize the H-1B and F-1 visa programs in December 2024.

    In October 2023, USCIS issued an NPRM to simplify the application process for H-1B visas, increase the program’s efficiency, and strengthen the program’s integrity measures. In February 2024, USCIS issued a final rule to implement a new beneficiary-centric selection process for H-1B registrations, but it did not finalize all of the provisions that were originally included in the NPRM. When publishing the February 2024 final rule, DHS indicated that it planned to publish a separate final rule to address the remaining aspects from October’s proposed rule. The separate final action listed in the Spring Regulatory Agenda will likely be the remainder of the provisions from the NPRM.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates to these regulations and additional policies as they are introduced.



    Source link