by CUPA-HR | July 10, 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.
University of California and UAW Agree to End Grad Student Strike
The rolling strike of University of California graduate students at several campuses, protesting the university’s handling of Israel-Hamas war protests is formally over as a result of the university and union agreement to extend the injunction granted by a California state court at the university’s request. The university successfully argued that the rolling strike violated the collective bargaining agreement’s no-strike provision. The UAW represents 38,000 grad students at several University of California campuses.
UC student workers walked off their jobs at six campuses in May and continued a rolling strike until the court enjoined the strike activity. The university breach-of-contract litigation continues, as there remain issues to be decided by the court as to the breadth of the no-strike provisions and the university’s claim for damages resulting from the breach of the no-strike provisions.
University Prevails in Title IX Lawsuit Alleging Student Sex Harassment at a Private Party Off Campus
A federal judge recent ruled that a plaintiff student failed to provide evidence that the university had substantial control over the context in which the assault or sex harassment occurred to make the university liable under Title IX. The judge concluded that even though the university had control over the alleged harasser because of an alleged student code violation, this was not enough to substantiate jurisdiction under Title IX (Roe V. Marshall University Board of Governors (2024 BL 215044, S.D. W. Va. No. 3:22-cv-00532, 6/24/24)).
When the harassment occurs off campus, the judge ruled that the court must find some nexus between the “out of school conduct and the school.” The court concluded that the incident in question took place at a private party at a private residence and the party was not sanctioned, hosted or sponsored by the university or an entity affiliated with the university. Moreover, permission for the party was not sought from the university, and the university was unaware of the party until it was over.
The university’s Title IX office determined, four days after the incident, that the matter should be handled by the university’s Office of Student Conduct, which the judge concluded was consistent with Title IX regulations at the time. The student conduct office immediately issued an no-contact order between the student and the alleged harasser and conducted a six-week investigation.
The male student (alleged harasser) was ultimately placed on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program, do 20 hours of community service, and accept responsibility for violation of the student code. The plaintiff (alleged victim) was also put on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program and complete 10 hours of community service, after admitting to underage drinking. In dismissing the case against the university, the judge also concluded that the male student (alleged harasser) also faced possible independent criminal penalties.
Two Conservative Groups Are Bringing Court Challenges to Large Employers’ Workplace DEI Programs
America First Legal, led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed at least 15 lawsuits alleging that employer DEI programs are illegal under Title VII and has sent more than 30 letters asking the EEOC to probe employer DEI programs at large employers, including Morgan Stanley and IBM Corp. Academic institutions could be their next target.
The second organization, American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by conservative activist Edward Blum, has claimed that these DEI programs violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which affirms that all citizens are equally protected by the law. The organization has used the 1866 statute in challenging DEI programs at law firms, including Winston and Strawn, Morrison Foerster, and Perkins Coe. The 1866 statute is broader than Title VII. Plaintiffs suing under the 1866 statute avoid the Title VII damage cap and the requirement that a charge be filed with the EEOC before filing suit.
Transgender Woman Reaches Settlement of Claim That She Was Wrongly Denied Medical Coverage
A transgender woman plaintiff sued her employer’s group insurance plan, alleging that she was wrongly denied medical coverage for facial hair removal, which she claimed is an extremely important part of gender-affirming care. The plaintiff alleged that the care is deemed medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The lawsuit claimed that the denial, based on the conclusion that the surgery was cosmetic and unnecessary, was inconsistent with the evidence presented that the treatment was medically necessary (Cox V. WSP USA Inc. Group Insurance Plan (N.D. Cal. No. 3-24-cv-01312, 6/6/24)).
The plaintiff sought $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses plus $20,000 for future services. The case was dismissed after the parties stipulated to the judge that they had reached an undisclosed settlement.
Supreme Court Raises the Bar for the NLRB to Obtain an Adverse Injunction Against an Employer for Unfair Labor Practices
The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts should give no more weight to an NLRB request for injunctive relief against employers allegedly violating the NLRA unfair labor practice provisions than it would give other litigants in injunction cases (Starbucks Corp, V. McKinney (U.S. No. 23-367, 6/13/24)). The Supreme Court essentially held that a defending employer is entitled to discovery over the NLRB’s alleged evidence before the court can issue an injunction. In the past, the NLRB has been able to maintain secrecy over this information when seeking extraordinary relief (e.g. an injunction requiring reinstatement of employees allegedly terminated for supporting a union).
Supreme Court to Determine Employer Burden of Proof to Obtain an Exemption From FLSA Minimum Wage and Overtime Provisions
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to resolve the split in appellate courts on the precise evidentiary burden applicable to employers attempting to justify an exemption to the application of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. Right now the circuits are split over whether an employer must prove an exemption by “clear and convincing evidence” rather than the lesser standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” The Supreme Court will resolve this split and decide which standard is applicable to employers going forward (E.M.D. Sales Inc. V. Carrera (U.S. No. 23-217, petition granted 6/17/24)).
The issue involves whether the defendant firm’s sales personnel fall inside the “outside sales exemption.” The company lost the case at trial, where the federal court held that it did not meet the “clear and convincing” standard, while numerous other appellate courts have applied the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
