Category: EEOC

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.

Share This Article:

Source link

August 14, 2024
HR and the Courts — June 2024 – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | June 12, 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.

Judge Halts Academic Workers’ Strike at Several University of California Campuses

The University of California has taken legal action against United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents some 48,000 academic workers and graduate students across UC’s multiple campuses. The lawsuit requested an injunction to end the rolling strike at six campuses, which the university contended is in violation of the applicable no-strike contractual provisions. The judge granted the university’s request for a temporary restraining order on June 7, 2024. The order will halt the strike until the judge conducts a hearing over whether to grant a permanent injunction enforcing the no-strike provisions of the applicable labor contract (Regents of the University of California v. UAW Local 4811 (Cal Sup Court, No. 30-2024-01403666-CU-MC-CXC, 6/7/24)).

This case followed the university’s complaint to the California Public Employment Relations Board alleging that the union had violated the applicable no-strike provisions. The board filed a complaint against the union, arguing it failed to give the university “adequate advance notice” and “failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith,” but declined the university’s request to seek a court order halting the strike.

Following its exhaustion of all remedies at the state board, the university filed its own state court complaint, seeking to end the strike. The complaint accused picketers of blocking entrances to university property, including hospitals, and illegally occupying buildings. The university argued that the breach of contract endangers lifesaving research at hundreds of laboratories across many campuses. The UAW claimed that the no-strike clause is inapplicable because the university violated state law by calling in police to break up pro-Palestinian encampments on several campuses and allegedly changed workplace rules in response to the protests. The proceedings will continue with a full hearing over whether to convert the restraining order into a permanent injunction further barring the strike activity.

University of Florida Recruit Sues Over Claimed $13.85 Million NIL Deal — NCAA Proposes Settlement of NIL Class Action

A former football recruit has sued the University of Florida’s football coach and boosters, alleging they recruited him with the promise of $13.85 million in name, image and likeness payments and then reneged. The complaint, filed in federal district court in Florida, alleges fraud, tortious interference and other claims. The plaintiff alleges that, after the NIL offer, he rejected other lucrative offers only to have the Florida offer “decrease drastically” (Rashada v. Hathcock (N.D. Fla., 3:24-cv-00219, complaint 5/21/24)).

The plaintiff alleges that, as a 19-year-old college-bound athlete, he was persuaded by a network of university officials and donors to flip on his commitment to the University of Miami, but they never came through on the NIL promises. After the deal never materialized, the plaintiff went to the University of Arizona instead and ultimately transferred to the University of Georgia.

Separately, the NCAA and the Power Five conferences have proposed a nearly $2.8 billion settlement of the class action claim against them relating to their former ban on NIL payments to student-athletes. If the settlement is approved, the NCAA also agrees that it would no longer attempt to regulate NIL payments, which would be solely up to each college and university to determine and administer (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal., No., 4:20-cv-03919)).

Court of Appeals to Review Whether Discharge for Refusal to Take Anti-Discrimination Training Is Itself Discriminatory

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) will decide whether to affirm a federal trial court’s dismissal of a discrimination claim brought by a White employee. The employee claimed he was discharged in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws for his refusal to take the employer’s mandatory anti-discrimination training, which he claimed was discriminatory. The plaintiff claimed the training was inherently biased against White employees, after admitting he had no knowledge of the contents of the training (Vavra v. Honeywell International Inc. (Case No. 23-02823, oral arg sched 5/21/24)).

The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s internal emails to the company’s president, which accused the company of “race baiting,” were protected communications. The court further concluded that the plaintiff was not terminated for the communications, but rather because of his refusal to take mandatory anti-discrimination training that was not itself discriminatory. The employer’s diversity, equity and inclusion and law departments had properly vetted the training and concluded it was intended to foster an inclusive work environment.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects White Professor’s Claims of Race and Sex Discrimination Filed Against HBCU

The Supreme Court turned down a request for certiorari and declined to hear a White law school professor’s claim that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had erroneously dismissed her claim of race and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The law professor had claimed that the appeals court erroneously dismissed her claims that she and other female professors were treated poorly in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act and that she was forced to resign from Texas Southern University, a historically Black institution. The court denied the professor’s two petitions for it to hear her case without issuing an opinion (Sacks v. Texas Southern University (Case Nos. 23-891 & 23-1031, Cert denied 5/13/24)).

The plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to adopt a “totality of circumstances” standard in determining whether her claims of years of “alleged” harassment and continuing violations justified her conclusion that she felt compelled to resign. The plaintiff also complained that the lower court had denied her the right to receive female wage data while requiring her to identify male comparators to make her Equal Pay Act claims. The Supreme Court denied the professor’s request to be heard in the absence of a response from the university, which had waived its right to respond to the professor’s petitions.

In Employment Law Matter, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Federal Courts Can No Longer Dismiss Federal Lawsuits Subject to Mandatory Arbitration

The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split among federal appellate courts on whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal trial courts can dismiss rather than stay a lawsuit that is covered by the terms of a mandatory arbitration agreement pending the outcome of arbitration. The 1st, 5th, 8th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have previously allowed dismissal while the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th have ruled that the case must be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

The case involved a group of drivers who claimed they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to minimum wage, overtime and paid sick leave under federal and state laws. Both sides agreed that the dispute was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement. The 9th Circuit ruled the case should be dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the specific provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act require the courts to stay the action while it is referred to arbitration, pending the outcome of the arbitration (Smith v. Spizzirri (US No, 22-1218, 5/16/24)).

Texas Sues EEOC Over Guidance Protecting LGBTQIA+ Employees From Sex Harassment Relating to Their Choice of Pronouns and Bathrooms Consistent With Gender Identity

The Texas attorney general has filed suit in federal court seeking to block enforcement of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent guidance aimed at shielding LGBTQIA+ employees who seek to use pronouns and bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Texas suit alleges that the most recent EEOC guidance goes beyond the statutory limits of Title VII just as the prior EEOC workplace guidance, which was vacated in Texas federal court, did (The State of Texas v. EEOC (N/D. Tex., 2:21-CV-194-Z, Complaint, filed 5/21/24)).

Separately, a coalition of 18 Republican attorneys general have also filed suit, seeking to block this EEOC guidance and alleging the same legal overreach by the EEOC.

Share This Article:

Source link

June 12, 2024
EEOC Finalizes Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | May 8, 2024

On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued final guidance on workplace harassment and discrimination titled “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.” The guidance clarifies existing employer obligations to address workplace discrimination and aims to assist employers in recognizing, managing and preventing in-person and online workplace harassment.

Background

The EEOC administers and enforces Equal Employment Opportunity law to protect workers against workplace discrimination. As such, the EEOC issues guidance to help employers and employees understand their obligations and rights under EEO law to a workplace free from discrimination. In October 2023, the EEOC issued its proposed guidance on harassment in the workplace, in which they provided an overview and examples of situations that would constitute workplace harassment. The EEOC received over 38,000 comments from the public in response to the proposed guidance, which they analyzed to develop the final guidance summarized below.

Summary of Final Guidance

The EEOC’s final guidance aligns with and expands upon the proposed guidance and revises previous EEOC workplace harassment and discrimination guidance to address significant legal developments in recent years. Specifically, the guidance includes new overviews of workplace protections against harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which the 2020 Supreme Court Bostock v. Clayton County ruling established as precedent. The guidance also addresses pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions as protected characteristics under the scope of “sex.” Though pregnancy has previously been protected against workplace harassment under laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, recent laws like the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its implementing regulations have strengthened the protections afforded to pregnant workers, necessitating the need for the EEOC to update its guidance.

In addition to the expanded scope of sex, the EEOC also includes new guidance on potential challenges relating to social media and the workplace. This includes conduct occurring in a non-work-related virtual setting (such as social media platforms or private messaging systems on personal computers or phones) that could impact the workplace. In the guidance, the EEOC provides scenarios in which certain messages shared via private messages on phones or posts shared on social media platforms about employees could create hostile work environments, triggering the requirement for employers to correct the situation.

In total, the guidance provides 77 examples to explain harassment and discrimination in the workplace, hostile work environments, employer liability and obligations to correct workplace harassment and discrimination, and systemic harassment. As the EEOC noted in the proposed rule, the guidance and its examples “do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way.” Instead, the guidance is “intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.”

In addition to the guidance, the EEOC also published educational materials for employers and employees seeking direction and support on harassment prevention strategies, including a summary of key provisions, an FAQ for employees, and a fact sheet for small businesses.

CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of further EEOC guidance on discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Share This Article:

Source link

May 8, 2024
EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Regulations on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | April 17, 2024

On April 15, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its long-awaited final regulations and interpretative guidance on the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The EEOC states in its press release that the final rule is intended to offer “important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law.” It provides guidance to employers and workers “about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, and how individuals can request reasonable accommodations.” The regulations will be published in the Federal Register on April 19 and go into effect 60 days later.

The PWFA, which was signed into law in December 2022, requires most employers with 15 or more employees “to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.” It passed Congress with strong bipartisan support.

Known Limitations

Under the regulation, “limitations” include both physical and mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The regulations specify that the definition of a limitation “shall be construed broadly to the maximum extent permitted by the PWFA.” A limitation “may be a modest, minor, and/or episodic impediment or problem” and can be related to current or past pregnancies, potential or intended pregnancies, and labor and childbirth.

The examples of limitations provided in the rule include miscarriage or stillbirth, migraines, lactation, postpartum depression, and pregnancy-related episodic conditions, such as morning sickness, but the list is not intended to be exhaustive. The limitation may be “a need or a problem related to maintaining [the worker’s] health or the health of the pregnancy,” and it “need not be caused solely, originally, or substantially by pregnancy or childbirth.” Related medical conditions can include conditions that existed before pregnancy or childbirth but are exacerbated by the pregnancy or childbirth.

The employee or their representative must communicate the limitation to the employer to receive a reasonable accommodation. The employee and employer should engage in an interactive process to determine if a worker’s limitation qualifies for a reasonable accommodation and the appropriate accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodations

Under the final rule, “reasonable accommodations” have the same definition as under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They include modifications or adjustments to the application process, to the work environment or how the work is performed, and that allow the employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by similarly situated employees without known limitations. It also includes modifications or adjustments to allow a covered employee to temporarily suspend one or more essential functions of the job.

The rule provides several examples of reasonable accommodations that may be appropriate under the act. These include but are not limited to additional breaks, allowing the worker to sit while they work, temporary reassignment or suspension of certain job duties, telework, or time off to recover. Leave can be requested even if the employer does not offer leave as an employee benefit, the employee is not eligible for the employer’s leave policy, or the employee has used up their allotted leave under the employer’s policy.

Reasonable accommodations are limited to the individual who has a PWFA-covered limitation; it does not extend to an individual who is associated with someone with a qualifying limitation or someone with a limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of someone else’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition. The regulations specifically clarify that “time for bonding or time for childcare” are not covered by the PWFA.

Undue Hardship

The rule explains that an employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it would cause an “undue hardship,” or a significant difficulty or expense. The rule includes a variety of factors that should be considered when determining if a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship, including the nature and net cost of the accommodation; the overall financial resources of the facility or covered entity; the type of operations of the covered entity; and the impact of the accommodation on operations, including on the ability of other employees to perform their duties or the facility’s ability to conduct business.

The rule provides several factors to consider when analyzing whether an accommodation involving the temporary suspension of essential functions of the position qualifies as an undue hardship. These include the length of time the employee will not be able to perform the essential function; whether there is work for the employee to accomplish; the nature of the essential function; the employer’s history of providing temporary suspensions to other, similarly situated employees; whether other employees can perform the functions; and whether the essential functions can be postponed.

Other Provisions

The rule also encourages “early and frequent communication between employers and workers” in order “to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.” Employers are also instructed that they are not required to request supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation; they should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.

Controversies Surrounding the Regulations

While the PWFA was passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support, the EEOC has faced significant pushback about the implementing regulations.

The EEOC’s delay in issuing these regulations caused considerable frustration from employers. The PWFA went into effect in June 2023, which was when employers were required to comply with the law and the EEOC began accepting claims of discrimination under the act. Without the implementing regulations, however, employers had no certainty as to how to comply, leaving them exposed to potential liability.

The most significant criticism stemmed from the regulation’s implications around abortion. In fact, of the nearly 100,000 comments the EEOC received in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking on the regulations, over 96,000 discussed the regulation’s inclusion of abortion. The final rule clarifies that “having or choosing not to have an abortion” qualifies as a medical condition under the regulations. Several Republican members of Congress accused the EEOC of using the regulations to further the Biden administration’s pro-choice agenda. EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, however, defended the language, saying it is consistent with legal precedent and the agency’s interpretations of other civil rights statutes under their jurisdiction. The regulation clarifies that employers will not be required to pay for abortions or travel-related expenses for an employee to obtain an abortion. The EEOC specifies they expect the most likely accommodation related to abortion will be leave to attend a medical appointment or recover from a procedure. Several conservative organizations are threatening legal action against the final rule.

Litigation Challenging the PWFA

On February 27, 2024, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the House of Representatives lacked a quorum when it passed the PWFA, because over 200 representatives voted by proxy. The Constitution required that a quorum be present for the House to conduct business, but in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the House allowed for proxy voting. The court found Congress violated the Constitution when it passed the law and blocked enforcement of the act against the state of Texas and its agencies. The law is in effect elsewhere in the United States, but other legal challenges may follow Texas’s approach.

Share This Article:

Source link

April 17, 2024
HR and the Courts — February 2024 – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | February 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.

Basketball Players Are Employees of Dartmouth, NLRB Concludes—Union Vote Scheduled for March 5

Student-athletes on the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team will vote March 5 on whether to join a union in an election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board. The applicable NLRB regional director issued a decision on February 5, holding that the basketball players are employees of Dartmouth, as the institution provides compensation to the athletes and exerts control over them (NLRB Reg’l Dir., No. 01-RC-325633, 2/5/24, 2/9/24).

The basketball players filed a petition to be represented by the Service Employees International Union, Local 560, in September. Dartmouth has indicated that it will appeal the regional director’s decision to the full NLRB after the March 5 election.

The regional director decided that the basketball players meet the definition of employees under the National Labor Relations Act because “Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men’s basketball team.” The regional director further held that the athletes receive compensation in the form of equipment totaling nearly $3,000 an athlete per season, tickets to events, and travel and lodging from the institution.

This is the first time that the NLRB has ruled that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA. In 2014, the NLRB declined to take jurisdiction over Northwestern University football players in denying an election in that case. The regional director in the Dartmouth case concluded that nothing in the Northwestern case precluded a later decision that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA.

This issue is also being litigated by the NLRB on the West Coast in unfair labor practice proceedings alleging that student-athlete basketball and football players have been improperly classified as students and not employees of the University of Southern California, the NCAA and the PAC-12 Conference.

SpaceX Challenges Constitutionality of NLRA

SpaceX filed a formal complaint in federal district court in response to a complaint the NLRB issued. The NLRB’s complaint concerned SpaceX firing eight employees over a letter they filed within the company’s internal distribution network. The letter called into question SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s public comments and called for the organization to distance itself from Musk. The employees were fired, and the NLRB issued a complaint alleging that they were fired in violation of the NLRA as a result of engaging in concerted activities protected by the NLRA.

SpaceX alleges that the NLRA is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers and deprives the employer the right to a jury trial (Space Exploration Technologies v. NLRB et al (Case No. 1:24:00001 S.D. Tx. 1/4/24)). The lawsuit specifically alleges that the NLRB’s structure of requiring complaints to be heard and initially adjudicated by administrative law judges, with appeal rights to the NLRB and eventually to the U.S. Court of Appeals, deprives employers their right to a jury trial. SpaceX alleges that the NLRB’s administrative structure violates its Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on criminal matters.

NLRB Seeks to Bring More Higher Ed Religious Institutions Under Its Jurisdiction

In a recent hearing over a case primarily involving whether the NLRB should have jurisdiction over student-athletes, the NLRB attorneys also asked the administrative law judge (ALJ) to reverse the Trump-era, 2020 decision in the Bethany College case, which broadly exempted religiously affiliated, non-profit, higher ed institutions that hold themselves out publicly as religious institutions.

The NLRB attorneys argued that the Bethany case was wrongfully decided and that the ALJ should return to the NLRB’s prior rule laid down in the Pacific Lutheran case. Under the Pacific Lutheran decision, religious higher ed institutions are exempt from NLRB jurisdiction only if the faculty members perform religious functions in addition to lay teaching responsibilities.

Appeals Court Revives Professor’s Claim That Termination Violated His Contract Without Due Process

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a tenured biology professor’s contract violation claim stemming from his termination. The appeals court ruled that the trial court erred in concluding that the Jackson State University professor’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The professor was terminated for alleged unauthorized research, which stemmed from his use of unauthorized undergraduate students to assist in his research involving the use of human urine.

The professor was suspended in 2015. The department chair concluded in mid-2015 that he would recommend the professor’s termination based on the reports he heard. In 2018, the faculty personnel committee sided with the professor, but the university president rejected the committee’s reinstatement recommendation in 2018. In March 2019, the board of the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) terminated the professor per the university president’s decision. The professor sued in 2022, and the trial court dismissed on three-year statute-of-limitations grounds. The appeals court reversed, holding that the IHL decision, which was the final termination decision, was when the statute of limitations would start running and therefore the lawsuit was filed within the three-year statute of limitations and can go forward.

EEOC on Alert for Workplace Discrimination Resulting From Israel-Hamas War

At her first press event as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s new general counsel, Karla Gilbride indicated that the EEOC has received reports from workers and advocacy organizations representing the Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities of an increase in workplace discrimination against protected groups resulting from the Israel-Hamas war. The EEOC has signaled interest in pursuing domestic workplace discrimination that may result from “local, national or global events.” The general counsel indicated that it is a priority in the agency’s strategic enforcement plan to be responsive in this area.

Gilbride concluded, “We’re reviewing that data to get a better handle on whether we at EEOC are recognizing an uptick in discrimination on the basis of religion or national origin affecting Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities or people who might be perceived as belonging to those communities even if they did not actually belong to those communities.” The general counsel indicated that global events in the past, such as 9/11, have led to an increase in domestic workplace discrimination.

Employee at University of Michigan at Dearborn Has First Amendment, Free Speech Right to Speak to Press

The 6^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) rejected the University of Michigan at Dearborn’s defense of sovereign immunity and allowed a university employee’s claim of First Amendment speech retaliation to proceed (Ashford v. Univ of Michigan (6th Cir., No. 22-02057, 1/9/24)). The appeals court held that the employee’s speaking to the press about the university’s “mishandling” of a student’s sex harassment complaint against a professor was a matter of public concern. Further, this matter was not part of the employee’s job responsibilities or duties. The court held that the employee was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern and is therefore allowing the employee’s request that his 10-day suspension be expunged to move forward.

The employee is also requesting an injunction against the university barring future retaliation for speech he might engage in. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the local campus police mishandled a student’s sex harassment complaint. The plaintiff alleged that he raised his concerns internally with his supervisor and with campus security before speaking with the press. The employee also alleges that the newspaper came to him for comment and initiated the process, which led to his statement. The court reiterated that the plaintiff was not speaking to further his official duties but was speaking as a private citizen.

Yale Professor Sues, Claiming Sex Discrimination Against Males

A federal trial court recently ruled that a Yale University medical school professor’s claim of gender discrimination can proceed to trial. The claims of discrimination result from the university’s additional decision to remove the professor’s endowed chair designation, sometime subsequent to the university’s initial punishment for his sex harassment transgressions (Simons v. Yale University (2024 BL 15344, D. Conn., No. 3:19-cv-01547, 1/17/24)).

The professor alleged that only men are subject to multiple punishments for the same infraction. The court ruled that losing an honorific title could be an adverse job action even if pay was not reduced in that action. The court concluded that the plaintiff had previously been punished in multiple ways concerning the incident, including losing his positions as chief of the section of cardiovascular medicine and director of the university’s cardiovascular research center.

Share This Article:

Source link

February 14, 2024
EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published new proposed guidance for employees and employers on navigating and preventing workplace harassment. “Enforced Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” highlights and upholds existing federal employment discrimination laws and precedence, such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

The Updated Guidance

The proposed enforcement guidance provides an overview and examples of situations that would constitute workplace harassment. Of particular interest are provisions included that reflect new and existing protections from harassment under federal laws and precedence, as well as emerging issues surrounding the workforce. The guidance discusses the following notable provisions for consideration:

Pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. The guidance states that sex-based harassment includes harassment revolving around pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, all of which are protected under federal laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the recently enacted PWFA.

Sexual orientation and gender identity. The guidance provides several examples of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which is considered sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

Virtual and online harassment. The guidance states that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile environment, providing examples such as harassing comments made during remote calls or discriminatory imagery being visible in an employee’s workspace while in a work-related video call. Additionally, the guidance provides examples of conduct on social media outside of work-related contexts that may contribute to hostile work environments if such conduct impacts the workplace.

In the proposed guidance, the EEOC reminds stakeholders that the final guidance will “not have the force and effect of law” and that such guidance is “not meant to bind the public in any way.” Instead, the document “is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Commission policies.”

Looking Ahead

The proposed guidance is open for public comments through November 1, 2023. Once the comment period closes, the EEOC will review all feedback they received and make changes to address the comments prior to issuing a final rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this EEOC guidance, as well as new and existing laws falling under the EEOC’s jurisdiction.

Share This Article:
Source link
October 27, 2023
HR and the Courts — September 2023 – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | September 13, 2023

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

Unionization Increases to Record Levels, Largely Driven by Graduate Students and Medical Interns

Unionization in the first six months of 2023 reached near record levels, surpassing last year’s numbers, which were driven by Starbucks employees’ organization drives. In the first six months of 2023, over 58,000 new workers were unionized, almost 15,000 more than last year’s significant levels. The size of new bargaining units has grown, with new units of 500 or more employees growing by 59% over last year. In the first six months of 2023, unions won 95% of elections in large units of over 500 employees compared to 84% in the first six months of 2022.

According to a Bloomberg Law report, this increase coincides with a growth in graduate assistant and medical intern organizing. There have been union organization elections in 17 units involving graduate students and medical interns in the first six months of 2023. This is the highest level of activity in the sector since the 1990s.

Court of Appeals Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim by Fire Chief Who Was Terminated After Attending a Religious Event on “City Time”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) rejected a former fire chief’s allegation of religious discrimination after he attended a church-sponsored Christian leadership event in place of attending a non-religious leadership training program he was asked to attend (Hittle v. City of Stockton, California (2023 BL 268076, 9th Cir. 22-15485, 8/4/23)). The court concluded that the fire chief’s supervisors were legitimately concerned about the constitutional implications of a city official attending a church-sponsored event.

The fire chief claimed, as evidence of religious discrimination, that city supervisors questioned whether his attendance at the event was part of a “Christian Coalition.” He further alleged that the supervisors questioned whether he was part of a “Christian clique.” The court rejected the fire chief’s arguments that this questioning amounted to religious bias against Christians. The court concluded that the questioning was related to the report they received on his attendance at the church-sponsored event. The court noted that the supervisors did not use derogatory terms to express their own views. The case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, and we will follow developments as they unfold.

University Wins Dismissal of Federal Sex Harassment Lawsuit for Failure of Professor to File a Timely Underlying Charge of Sex Harassment With the EEOC

Pennsylvania State University won a dismissal of a male ex-professor’s federal sex harassment lawsuit alleging a female professor’s intolerable sex harassment forced him to resign. The Federal Court concluded that the male professor never filed a timely charge with the EEOC (Nassry v. Pennsylvania State University (M.D. Pa. 23-cv-00148, 8/8/23)). The plaintiff professor argued he was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because he attempted to resolve the matter internally as opposed to “overburdening the EEOC.”

The court commented that while the plaintiff’s conduct was “commendable,” the court was unable to locate any case where a plaintiff was bold enough to offer such a reason to support equitable tolling. The court dismissed the federal case, holding that there was no way to conclude the plaintiff professor was precluded from filing in a timely manner with the EEOC due to inequitable circumstances. The court dismissed the related state claims without prejudice as there was no requirement that the state claims be filed with the EEOC.

Professor’s First Amendment Retaliatory-Discharge Case Over Refusal to Comply With COVID-19 Health Regulations Allowed to Move to Discovery

A former University of Maine marketing professor who was discharged and lost tenure after refusing to comply with COVID-19 health regulations on the ground that they lacked sufficient scientific evidentiary support is allowed to move forward with discovery. The university’s motion to dismiss was denied (Griffin V. University of Maine System (D. Me. No. 2:22-cv-00212, 8/16/23)).

The court held “for now” the professor is allowed to conduct discovery to flush out evidence of whether or not the actions which led to the termination were actually protected free speech. The court concluded that the actual free speech question will be decided after more facts are unearthed.

U.S. Court of Appeals Reverses Employer-Friendly “Ultimate Employment Decision” Restriction on Actionable Title VII Complaints

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) reversed the long standing, 27-year-old precedent restricting Title VII complaints to those only affecting an “ultimate employment decision.” The employer-friendly precedent allowed the courts to dismiss Title VII complaints not rising to the level of promotion, hiring, firing and the like. The 5th Circuit now joins the 6th Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) and the D.C. Circuit (covering Washington, D.C.) in holding that a broader range of employment decisions involving discrimination are subject to Title VII jurisdiction.

The 5th Circuit case involved a Texas detention center which had a policy of allowing only male employees to have the weekend off. The 5th Circuit reversed its prior ruling dismissing the case and allowed the case to proceed. This reversed the old “ultimate employment decision” precedent from being the standard as to whether a discrimination case is subject to Title VII jurisdiction.

Union Reps Can Join OSHA Inspectors Under Newly Revised Regulations

The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed revised regulations that would allow union representatives to accompany OSHA inspectors on inspections. The regulations, which were first proposed during the Obama administration, were stalled by an adverse court order and then dropped during the Trump administration.

The proposed rule would drop OSHA’s current reference to safety engineers and industrial hygienists as approved employee reps who could accompany the inspector. The new rule would allow the OSHA inspector to approve any person “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of a site visit. Among the professions that could be approved are attorneys, translators and worker advocacy group reps. The public comment period on these proposed regulations will run through October 30, 2023.

Share This Article:

Source link

September 13, 2023
EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Protections – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | August 28, 2023

On August 7, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a proposed rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The proposed rule provides a framework for how the EEOC plans to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA.

In December, the PWFA was signed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The law establishes employer obligations to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees so long as such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship on the business, and makes it unlawful to take adverse action against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations. The requirements of the law apply only to businesses with 15 or more employees.

Purpose and Definitions

Under the proposed rule, the EEOC states that employers are required to “provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.”

Most definitions included in the EEOC’s proposed regulations follow the definitions provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed rule, however, expands upon the definition of a “qualified employee or applicant” to include an employee or applicant who cannot perform an essential function of the job so long as they meet the following criteria:
- Any inability to perform an essential function is for a temporary period
- The essential function could be performed in the near future
- The inability to perform the essential function can be reasonably accommodated
The rule continues by defining “temporary” as the need to suspend one or more essential functions if “lasting for a limited time, not permanent, and may extend beyond ‘in the near future.’” Accordingly, “in the near future” is defined to extend to 40 weeks from the start of the temporary suspension of an essential function.

Additionally, the terms “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” include a non-exhaustive list of examples of conditions that fall within the statute, including current or past pregnancy, potential pregnancy, lactation, use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, endometriosis, miscarriage, stillbirth, and having or choosing not to have an abortion. The proposed rule specifies that employees and applicants do not have to specify the condition on the list or use medical terms to describe a condition to receive an accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodations

The proposed rule states that requests for an accommodation should both identify the limitation and indicate the need for an adjustment or change at work. The rule adopts the interactive process for approving and adopting reasonable accommodations for employees or applicants as implemented under the ADA, meaning employers and the qualified employee or applicant can work together to reach an agreement on an appropriate accommodation.

The proposed rule also offers a non-exhaustive list of examples of reasonable accommodations that may be agreed upon during the interactive process. These include frequent breaks, schedule changes, paid and unpaid leave, parking accommodations, modifying the work environment to make existing facilities accessible, job restructuring and other examples.

Additionally, the proposed rule introduces “simple modifications,” which are presumed to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose an undue burden in almost all cases. The four simple modifications proposed are:
- Allowing employees to carry water and drink, as needed, in the work area
- Allowing employees additional restroom breaks
- Allowing employees to sit or stand when needed
- Allowing employees breaks, as needed, to eat and drink
Supporting Documentation

The proposed rule states that covered employers are not required to seek documentation to prove the medical condition or approve an accommodation, further stating that the employer can only request documentation if it is reasonable in order to determine whether to grant an accommodation for the employee or applicant in question. Under the regulations, “reasonable documentation” is that which describes or confirms the physical condition; that it is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions; and that a change or adjustment at work is needed for that reason. Examples of situations where requesting documentation may be determined to be unreasonable include when the limitation and need for an accommodation are obvious; when the employee has already provided sufficient documentation; when the accommodation is one of the four “simple modifications”; and when the accommodation is needed for lactation.

Remedies and Enforcement

The proposed rule establishes the applicable enforcement mechanisms and remedies available to employees and others covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for qualified employees and applicants covered under the PWFA. The rule also proposes several anti-retaliation and anti-coercion provisions to the list of protections granted to those covered by the PWFA.

Next Steps

The EEOC’s proposed rule marks the agency’s first step toward finalizing PWFA regulations. Although the timing is uncertain, the EEOC will likely aim to issue the final regulations by December 29 — the deadline Congress gave the agency to finalize a rulemaking to implement the law. Notably, however, the PWFA went into effect on June 27, meaning the EEOC is now accepting violation charges stemming from PWFA violations without having a final rule implemented.

The EEOC invites interested stakeholders to submit comments in response to the proposed rule by October 11. Comments will be considered by the agency before issuing its final rule for the PWFA.

CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any activity relating to the PWFA regulations.

Share This Article:
Source link
August 28, 2023
Congress and Federal Agencies Consider Paid-Leave Proposals and Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Workers – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | May 24, 2023

Over the past year, lawmakers have taken an increased interest in establishing and expanding upon benefits and protections for paid leave and pregnant workers. As a result, Congress passed two bills granting workplace protections to pregnant and nursing mothers at the end of 2022, while considering new federal proposals for paid family and medical leave. This post details some of the recent actions taken by lawmakers toward a federal paid-leave policy, as well as updates from federal agencies on the enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act.

Bipartisan Working Group on Paid Leave

In April, a group of bipartisan lawmakers in the House of Representatives established the Bipartisan Paid Family Leave Working Group, the goal of which “is to create a bipartisan paid family leave policy that supports American families and businesses.” The group consists of three Republicans — Reps. Stephanie Bice (R-OK), Julia Letlow (R-LA) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) — and three Democrats — Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Colin Allred (D-TX) and Haley Stevens (D-MI).

In a letter establishing the working group, the lawmakers expressed their intention to explore both state and federal policies that already exist with the goal of creating an established paid-leave policy. The letter discusses both the successes and areas to improve of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and it states that there is a bipartisan consensus that paid leave is an issue that needs to become law.

FAMILY Act

On May 17, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) reintroduced the FAMILY Act, which would grant up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees at companies of all sizes through funds collected by payroll taxes paid by both employees and employers. The FAMILY Act was first introduced in 2013, but the most recent bill expands upon previous text by creating a progressive scale for wage replacement during the time off. Under the bill, the lowest paid workers would be eligible to receive up to 85 percent of their wages during their time off, while the average full-time worker would receive approximately two-thirds of their wages. Additionally, the bill extends coverage to include time off taken to address personal incidents with domestic violence, stalking and/or sexual assault.

While most Democrats have championed the FAMILY Act as their preferred proposal for paid leave, the bill is unlikely to gain Republican support and will therefore not pass the House during this Congress. Republicans have previously opposed the bill, arguing against the proposed tax increases as well as potential burdens employers may face as a result of a paid-leave mandate. Instead, Republicans who have shown interest in advancing paid-leave policies have considered programs allowing individuals to borrow from their Social Security funds, incentivizing the creation of a private insurance system for leave pay, and providing tax credits to pay for time off.

PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

On May 18, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) with enforcement information and public guidance for the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. The law went into effect on April 28, after being included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 year-end legislation to fund the federal government.

As a reminder, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds on existing protections in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Provision by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. Specifically, the bill ensures reasonable time and space for working individuals to pump in their workplaces as well as remedies for employer violations of the act.

The FAB provides details on the requirements for reasonable space and break time, compensation, and employer posting of FLSA requirements as provided under the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. Employers and field staff alike may use the FAB document as a resource to understand compliance with the act as enforced by WHD.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Alongside the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, the PWFA was also signed into law under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The effective date of the PWFA is June 27, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was expected to issue proposed regulations on how best to govern and enforce the PWFA by then.

As of May, however, the EEOC has yet to release any proposed regulations, and it seems likely that the agency will not be able to issue a proposed rule by the June 27 date. The commission currently has two Democratic and two Republican commissioners, and given the need for a majority of commissioners to vote to advance a rulemaking, the agency is unable to move proposed rules forward because commissioners are split along party lines. Through the legislation, Congress has allowed the EEOC through the end of 2023 to finalize a rulemaking on the PWFA, which may or may not be achieved, depending on whether the Senate is able to confirm Kalpana Kotagal as the third Democratic appointee on the commission. In lieu of the proposed rulemaking, the EEOC has issued guidance on the law through an FAQ webpage addressing the protections granted under the law, which stakeholders may use as they wait for the official regulations.

CUPA-HR continues to monitor any developments related to these proposals and laws and will keep members apprised of any policy updates related to paid leave and protections for pregnant and nursing workers.

Share This Article:

Source link

May 24, 2023
HR and the Courts — April 2023 – CUPA-HR

by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This Article:

Source link

April 12, 2023