Category: EEOC

  • HR and the Courts – November 2022 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – November 2022 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 2022

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

    EEOC Disavows Publicly-Expressed Views of Former General Counsel Regarding Abortion Travel Issues 

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) took the rare step of publicly disavowing the views expressed by its former general counsel who was appointed during the Trump administration and replaced during the Biden administration. The EEOC stated on October 31, 2022 that its former general counsel expressed her personal views, not that of the agency, when she warned that employers providing travel assistance to employees seeking an abortion but not for other procedures might be sued by the EEOC. Nonetheless, this is a developing area of the law and counsel should be consulted on these issues.

    Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument Over Continuation of Affirmative Action In College Admissions

    The Supreme Court heard oral argument over the continuation of Affirmative Action in college admissions on October 31, 2022 in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions (SSFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC). The first major Supreme Court decision involving Affirmative Action in college admissions occurred in 1978 in University of California v. Bakke. In Bakke, a divided Supreme Court approved the University of California’s Affirmative Action plan with four justices ruling in favor of the plan and four justices ruling that the Affirmative Action plan violated the constitution. The remaining solo opinion of Justice Lewis Powell coupled with the four votes in favor of Affirmative Action became the precedent. Justice Powell concluded that a race-conscious admissions program could theoretically satisfy constitutional strict scrutiny by being narrowly tailored to promote a diverse student body.

    In 2003, a majority of the Supreme Court endorsed Justice Powell’s solo opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor added in the majority opinion that the Court expects that such policies will no longer be necessary in 25 years.

    The Supreme Court set aside two hours to hear oral argument in two lawsuits brought by the SFFA, an anti-Affirmative Action group, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The SFFA wants the Supreme Court to overturn Justice Powell’s solo opinion in the Bakke case and end consideration of race in college admissions. The group argues among other things that current Affirmative Actions policies routinely discriminate against Asian Americans who do not receive racial preferences. Both colleges deny that Affirmative Action policies discriminate against Asian Americans.

    To complicate matters further, both cases were coupled for oral argument, but were uncoupled and heard separately because Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself for the Harvard case because of past work on Harvard’s Board of Overseers.

    Supreme Court Considers Long-Standing Preemption of State Laws Barring Employer State-Based Claims of Destruction of Property During Labor Disputes

    The Supreme Court will also reconsider this term its 60-year-old decision in San Diego Building Trades v. Garmon (commonly referred to as the Garmon Preemption Doctrine), in a case in which an employer is seeking to sue a teamsters local union alleging common law state claims of intentional destruction of property during a labor dispute and commencement of a strike (Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 174 (US No. 21-1449)). The Supreme Court ruled in the Garmon case that the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts and therefore prohibits all state court lawsuits against unions, concluding that an employer’s sole remedy is subject to the provisions of the NLRA, and that sole remedy for relief is up to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

    In the case at hand, the Washington State Supreme Court dismissed an employer’s common law lawsuit against Teamster Local Union No. 174 for intentional destruction of property holding that under Garmon preemption the employer’s sole remedy is before the NLRB, which does not grant property damages to employers so harmed. The employer in the case alleged that its teamster union drivers returned the employers ready mix concrete trucks fully loaded with concrete to the yard prior to leaving on strike with the concrete in the trucks ready to harden and therefore destroyed the trucks. The teamsters claimed that they left the trucks running so that they could be unloaded safely.

    Some commentators conclude that if the Supreme Court alters Garmon broadly and allows such lawsuits to proceed, it could trigger a new and effective employer weapon in holding union’s liable for economic consequences of strikes and other actions taken during labor disputes. Those commentators also point out that if the Supreme Court broadly limits preemption, it could lead to conservative-leaning states to enact legislation restricting union conduct during strikes.

    California Joins Growing List of States Expanding Paid Leave Benefits

    California’s recent enactment of paid leave protections requiring employers to provide employees with paid leave to care for individuals who are not legal relatives joins the growing list of states regulating this area of employee benefits. So far, 11 states and the District of Columbia have enacted paid leave programs. Five of those states (Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington) allow employees to use those benefits to take care of non-relatives designated as “akin to family.”

    Nationwide, this is leading to a unique patchwork of requirements depending on where the employee is employed. Research should be conducted in your local jurisdiction to guide your institution on the breadth and application of possible city and/or state requirements. In addition, remote work in another state may also alter which state’s laws applies.

    U.S. Court of Appeals to Address Whether Sovereign Immunity Exempts State University From Federal Whistleblower Wrongful Discharge Claims

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina) will address whether Maryland state sovereign immunity applies to Morgan State University and Maryland State University in a case involving federal whistleblower wrongful discharge claims by the university’s former director of broadcast operations (Williams v. Morgan State University (4th Cir., Case no 21-01918, 10/13/22)).

    The plaintiff complained that the university mishandled a debate between Baltimore mayoral candidates and that she was ultimately discharged because she claimed that the mishandling may have violated the Federal Hatch Act and Federal Communications Commission regulations. The federal trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims, holding that while Maryland had waived sovereign immunity with respect to state tort claims, it did not do so regarding federal claims. The Court of Appeals has taken the unusual position of asking the Maryland State Court of Appeals whether the state has waived sovereign immunity with regard to federal tort claims.

    The plaintiff also added a federal whistleblower claim that the university’s dean and other professors were intentionally inflating expense numbers to federal and state agencies to “pad the university’s funding.”

    NLRB Returns to In-Person Manual Union Elections to Replace Mail-In Ballots Mandated During COVID-19 Pandemic

    In-person voting at employer premises in NLRB-supervised union elections is returning as the primary method of voting as the NLRB modifies the rules that it enacted during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which lead to a great increase in mail-in voting. Nearly 75 percent of the 3,185 NLRB-supervised elections, which were conducted since the start of 2020 during the pandemic, were conducted by mail according to Bloomberg BNA. Unions prevailed in 76 percent of the mail-in elections as opposed to prevailing in 68 percent of the in-person elections. Employers generally prefer in-person manual elections because of the NLRB rules, which ensure secrecy, avoid electioneering around voting areas and arguably prevent voter fraud coercion.

    Employer groups argue that there is greater turn out during in-person manual voting. Unions claim that employers have an unfair advantage at in-person, manual voting because the election takes place on the employer’s “home turf.”



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – October 2022 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – October 2022 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 4, 2022

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

    University’s Internal Investigation of Pay Equity Claims Protected By Attorney-Client Privilege — EEOC Fails In Attempt to Require Disclosure of Documents 

    A federal district court judge recently rejected the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s demand that a university turn over 54 documents related to an internal investigation the university conducted by inside and outside counsel concerning pay equity claims made by an athletic department employee who claimed she was paid approximately $37,000 less annually than a similarly situated male employee. The court rejected the EEOC’s argument that the investigation was conducted by the institution’s EEO office and did not involve seeking legal advice (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. George Washington University (2022 BL 308648, D.D.C., No. 1:17-cv-01978. 9/1/22)). The court ruled that the investigation and all related documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

    The court concluded that the university did not waive privilege by asserting good faith compliance with federal law as a defense to the EEOC’s claim for punitive damages. The court added that the university does not intend to use the documents in question in proving the good faith defense.

    Failure to Renew a Coach’s Discretionary Contract May Be an Actionable Adverse Employment Action Subject to a Title IX Retaliatory Termination Claim

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii) recently ruled that failure to renew a golf coach’s contract may be an adverse employment action subject to a Title IX retaliation claim (Macintyre v. Carroll College (9th Cir., No. 21- 35642, 9/8/22)). The plaintiff was hired as an assistant golf coach in 2006, promoted to head golf coach in 2007 and appointed associate athletic director in 2013. His contract was subject to renewal at the discretion of the college.

    The plaintiff became aware of what he thought was an improper disparity in the amount the college spent on men’s versus women’s athletic programs. He concluded that the college was out of compliance with applicable Title IX mandates. He alleges that after raising these issues with the interim athletic director and the Title IX coordinator he received negative performance reviews for the first time. He filed a grievance alleging discrimination. In settling the matter, he was given a two-year contract to be head golf coach. At the end of the two-year period his contract was not renewed. His current action alleges that the non-renewal was in retaliation for his raising Title IX concerns.

    The court, in ruling that the case should go forward, concluded that this non-renewal might be an adverse employment action and might deter employees from reporting discrimination.

    California Appeals Court Rules That Remote Work Due to COVID-19 Can Broaden Where Employees May Sue for Job Bias

    A California appellate court recently ruled that the COVID-19 pandemic and technological advances have changed the way people work. The court went on to hold that the venue provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act were meant to remove barriers for suing for job discrimination. Therefore, the “modern reality” of work means that an employee who was fired while on pregnancy leave at her home in Los Angeles County can sue there rather than in Orange County where the employer was located (Malloy v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County ( 2022 BL 330038 Cal. St. App 2nd Dist, 9/19/22)).

    The court concluded that allowing remote workers to sue where they worked or would have worked effectuates the purposes of the Act. The case involved a demand by the plaintiff’s employer that she return to the physical office after her pregnancy leave had ended. After the plaintiff was fired for not coming back to work, the plaintiff sued under the California statute for pregnancy and sex discrimination and sex harassment, interference with her family and medical leave rights, and retaliation for trying to exercise her family and medical leave rights. The plaintiff also included a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

    California Moves Toward Requiring Employers to Prove Impairment Before Terminating an Employee for Cannabis Use

    In another California development which may spread to other states, the governor signed a new law which goes into effect on January 1, 2024 that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who use cannabis during off-duty hours. Commentators conclude that this gives California employers 15 months to develop an accurate test on whether an employee is impaired at the job after smoking marijuana or consuming cannabis-infused snacks before firing them or otherwise disciplining an employee for marijuana use. The dilemma is that scientists conclude that there is currently no accurate test that determines impairment form using marijuana or cannabis products.

    Cosmetology Students and School Both Win Partial Summary Judgement on Claims That Students Should Be Paid For Work Completed as Part of School-Supervised Job Training

    A federal court in Michigan ruled in favor on summary judgement on some of the claims brought by cosmetology students that they should be paid for work performed as part of their course obligations to engage in supervised on-the-job training. The cosmetology school also won partial summary judgement regarding some of the tasks for which the student made wage claims (Eberline v. Douglas J. Holdings, Inc. (2022 BL 332583, E.D. Mich. Partial Summary Judgement 9/22/22)).

    The court divided the student tasks for which pay was claimed into three categories, namely client services, janitorial tasks and retail sales. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of facts on who was the primary beneficiary of client services tasks, ruling that the students were the primary beneficiary in this area, therefore granting partial summary judgement to the school. Similarly, the court ruled that there was no genuine dispute of facts on who was the primary beneficiary of janitorial tasks, ruling that the school was the primary beneficiary, therefore granting partial summary judgement to the students. Finally, the court ruled that there is a genuine dispute of facts on who is the primary beneficiary of retail sales tasks, thus ruling that this area must be given to a jury to decide.



    Source link

  • August Recess Roundup: Congressional and Regulatory Updates – CUPA-HR

    August Recess Roundup: Congressional and Regulatory Updates – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 22, 2022

    When August arrives, Congress leaves D.C. and heads to their home districts for the annual August recess period. To keep CUPA-HR members apprised of recent and future actions on the Hill and in federal agencies, here are highlights of the latest actions by Congress, nominations they’ll have to consider when they return, and regulations that may be issued throughout the month.

    Legislative Updates

    On August 16, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law following its passage, along partisan lines, in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is a slimmed down version of the reconciliation bill Democrats have been pushing for, focuses on policies to mitigate the impacts of climate change, reduce healthcare costs and increase tax revenue to reduce the federal budget deficit. This reconciliation bill was narrowed down from the “Build Back Better” agenda, a step necessary to gain support from Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) to get the bill over the 50-vote threshold. Notably, the final package did not include “Build Back Better” provisions like paid leave, universal community college and childcare.

    Additionally, on August 9, President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, which provided new funding to boost U.S. investments in research and manufacturing of semiconductors. With respect to the research investments, the bill includes a five-year, $81 billion authorization of the National Science Foundation to go toward research funding. Additionally, the bill provides new funding to historically black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions, and for STEM programs at colleges and universities.

    Nominations Awaiting Confirmation

    On July 27, President Biden announced Jessica Looman as the new nominee for the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division Administrator. Looman has been serving as acting administrator for the agency since June 2021. Her nomination replaces Biden’s previously withdrawn nomination of David Weil, who failed to garner enough support in the Senate to be confirmed. Looman’s nomination will have to go through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee prior to going to the Senate floor for a full vote. Timing on both votes are uncertain at this point.

    Additionally, Kalpana Kotagal’s nomination for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) continues to be held up in the Senate. In May, the Senate HELP Committee deadlocked on a vote to move her nomination to the full Senate, which means the full Senate will have to vote to advance her nomination out of committee — a logistical hurdle in a 50-50 Senate with sparse time on their legislative calendar. The result of this hold up means the EEOC will continue to operate with a Republican majority as federal statute allows Republican Commissioner Janet Dhillon, whose term expired in July, to remain an active member of the EEOC while her successor’s nomination is pending. If and when nominee Kotagal is confirmed, she will replace Commissioner Dhillon and tip control of the EEOC to a 3-2 Democratic majority. Her confirmation vote is also uncertain at this point.

    Regulatory Updates

    Though not guaranteed, there may be several proposals and final regulations that may be released by the Department of Education, the DOL and other relevant agencies throughout the month. Some of these include the expected proposed rule on Form I-9 remote verification flexibilities from the Department of Homeland Security, which has already had its review completed by the White House; a proposed rule on independent contractor classification, which was sent to the White House for review in July; and a final rule on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has a target release date set for August.

    In addition to these proposed and final rules CUPA-HR is waiting to be released, the Department of Education is still undergoing its notice-and-comment period for the Title IX proposed rule that was released in June. CUPA-HR is assessing the proposal and will put together comments in response to the proposed rule. Comments are due September 12.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of legislative and regulatory actions as August recess continues and we move into the fall.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – June 2022 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – June 2022 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 7, 2022

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

    Supreme Court to Determine Scope of Highly Paid Executive Employee Exemption Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

    The U.S. Supreme Court will review a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of an employee who was granted overtime status for his non-executive position that paid him $200,000 a year. This oil industry case will have application to all U.S. employers. The executive employee salary exemption threshold is currently $100,000 a year. At issue is whether compensation alone, absent executive/managerial status will exempt employees from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The employee was a non-executive toolpusher on a drill rig and was paid $200,000 a year, twice the $100,000 executive salary exemption minimum.

    There is a split in the circuit courts on this issue leaving the Supreme Court to decide the issue. The 6th and 8th Circuits have ruled that non-executive employees should not be exempt from the FLSA no matter how much money they make. The 1st and 2nd Circuits allow an exemption for these workers under the salary exemption test.

    Women’s Basketball Coach Can Proceed With Title VII Sex Discrimination Lawsuit — Not Required to Arbitrate Discrimination Claims Under Her Employment Contract

    A U.S. District Court judge rejected the University of Montana’s summary judgement motion to dismiss a sex discrimination lawsuit and enforce mandatory arbitration under its former women’s basketball coach’s employment contract. The sex discrimination claims related to her performance evaluations, criticisms, and decision not to renew her employment agreement. The employment agreement had a general arbitration clause which covered contract disputes. However the court pointed out that the arbitration clause did not mention sex discrimination or bias claims. Therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration clause lacked the “requisite precision” required by the 9th Circuit for an individual to waive their rights to pursue Title VII claims in court (Schweyen V. University of Montana-Missoula (2022 BL 156392, D. Mont No. 9:21-cv-00138, 5/5/22)).

    The court concluded that the arbitration agreement, at most, was an agreement to arbitrate contract disputes as a basketball coach. The court pointed out that the clause did not mention giving up her right to file suit in court over non-contract issues such as sex bias.

    Federal Court Enjoins EEOC and HHS From Requiring Christian Employers and Healthcare Providers to Cover Gender Transition Surgery 

    A U.S. District Court trial judge in North Dakota has barred the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from requiring Christian employers and healthcare providers, under either Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Affordable Care Act, to cover the cost of or provide gender transition surgery. The judge granted the injunction requested by the plaintiff, the Christian Employers Alliance, to prevent the EEOC and the HHS from requiring the group’s members to provide gender transition surgery until the case is tried on the merits and it is decided whether such a requirement violates the Christian employers’ First Amendment rights or rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (Christian Employers Alliance V. The EEOC, et al  (Case no. 1-21-cv-00195 D.N.D. 5/17/22)).

    The judge concluded that the plaintiff businesses must either violate sincerely held religious beliefs or face monetary losses, fines or civil liability. The judge concluded that the plaintiff’s likelihood of prevailing at trial on the merits, “weighed significantly in favor of granting the injunction.” The judge also enjoined the EEOC and HHS from enforcing the requirement to plaintiff employers’ insurers and third party administrators.

    Court of Appeals Reverses NLRB’s Decision Holding That the Employer’s “Back to the Salt Mine” Tweet Was an Unlawful Threat

    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision holding that the The Federalist magazine violated the National Labor Relations Act when, during the union’s organization campaign, the magazine’s publisher tweeted that if the magazine’s employees unionized he would send them “back to the salt mine.” The appeals court ruled that no reasonable employee could actually interpret the publicly available tweet as a veiled threat. The court concluded that Twitter posts are often exaggerated and sarcastic, as Twitter encourages such approaches.

    The court also concluded that the publisher sent the tweet to 80,000 followers, which made it publicly available rather than directing it to the six magazine employees who were subject to the union organization drive.

     



    Source link

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

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

    by CUPA-HR | April 11, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 12, 2022

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

    NCAA Loses Appeal For Expedited Ruling Denying Student-Athletes’ Minimum Wage FLSA Claims — Claims Move to Federal Court Trial 

    The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was denied a request or fast track consideration of its appeal of an adverse trial court order to proceed to trial over student-athlete claims that they are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime rules as they are employees. The trial court judge ruled that the question of whether the student-athletes are employees is a mixed question of law and fact, which should go to trial. The judge concluded that the NCAA can appeal an adverse trial decision after trial.

    The NCAA countered that similar suits in the U.S. Appeals Seventh and Ninth Circuits have been dismissed. The NCAA argued that appeals courts in the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) and in the Ninth Circuit (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana) both held that the NCAA is not the employer of student-athletes. In rejecting the NCAA’s interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit (covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) ruled that the NCAA failed to meet its burden in showing exceptional circumstances justifying departing from the normal policy of delaying appellate consideration until a final judgement is issued.

    EEOC Issues “Guidance” That COVID-19, Under Certain Circumstances, May Be a Disability Covered and Protected By the ADA From Discrimination

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued “guidance” in mid-December stating that, in certain circumstances, COVID-19 may be a disability covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), making it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees with COVID-19. The EEOC chair pointed out that employees with disabilities resulting from COVID-19 may be eligible for a reasonable accommodation. Depending on each employee’s individual circumstances, an employee recovering from COVID-19 may meet the ADA’s definition of a disability as a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, or an employer’s perception that the individual has a disability.

    Someone who has COVID-19 and experiences multi-day headaches, dizziness and brain fog attributable to COVID-19 is an example of an impairment covered by the ADA. However, the EEOC pointed out that not every person with COVID-19 will qualify as disabled. For example, if someone has COVID-19 and is asymptomatic or has mild symptoms similar to the flu that lasts only a few weeks, with no other consequences, that person would not qualify as disabled. The EEOC suggests an individual assessment of each employee with COVID-19 might be necessary to determine whether it is a disability.

    State and Local Ordinances Regulate the Use of Artificial Intelligence/Automated Job Applicant Screening Tools In Screening Job Applicants

    New York City (NYC) just established one of the broadest new laws concerning the use of artificial intelligence tools to screen job applicants by NYC employers. The effective date is unclear and local counsel should be consulted on the new regulations in NYC. Under the NYC law, such artificial intelligence tools will be banned in NYC unless they are subject to a “bias audit” conducted a year before the use of the tool. Illinois passed a law similar to the NYC law. Maryland passed a law banning the use of facial recognition in the employment application process without the applicant’s consent. The attorney general in the District of Columbia is also proposing a related proposal addressing “algorithmic discrimination.” The EEOC recently indicated that it would study the use of artificial intelligence job screening tools to see if they contribute to bias in employment decisions.

    Denial of Healthcare Coverage For Transgender Surgery Is Subject to Discovery Squabbles As Arizona Appeals Trial Court Order to Turn Over Attorney Opinions Concluded Its Actions Were Legal

    The state of Arizona recently appealed a federal trial court’s decision that it turn over “attorney opinions” and that its actions excluding transgender surgery from health plan coverage were legal, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit covers California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. The health plan’s exclusions are subject to a lawsuit alleging that the denial of benefits violates the applicable sex discrimination statutes.

    The state claimed that its actions excluding such benefits form coverage were legal and relied on “attorney opinions” to that effect. The plaintiff in the case asked that the opinions be turned over as part of the litigation, and the state of Arizona refused, claiming the documents were subject to attorney/client privilege The federal trial court judge agreed with the plaintiff, holding that Arizona waived privilege by implication, concluding that privilege cannot be used as both a sword and a shield.

    U.S. Department of Labor and NLRB Sign a Memorandum of Understanding, Agreeing to Cooperate In Enforcement Proceedings

    The Biden administration’s Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have come to an agreement on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to collaborate on enforcement investigations and share information on potential violations of the law. The enforcement agreement will target independent contractor misclassification matters and retaliation claims brought by workers. On the DOL side, this agreement involves the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, which enforces the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    The MOU partners two agencies with similar goals. It appears to follow through on last year’s tri-agency discussion between the DOL, NLRB and the EEOC when the agencies sought to discuss cooperation on retaliation claims brought by employees.



    Source link

  • EEOC Adds Technical Assistance Guidance to Clarify When COVID-19 Is Considered a Disability Under the ADA – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Adds Technical Assistance Guidance to Clarify When COVID-19 Is Considered a Disability Under the ADA – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 22, 2021

    On December 14, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released additional COVID-19 technical assistance to clarify certain circumstances under which employers and employees may consider COVID-19 a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The guidance, which is presented in a Q&A format, focuses broadly on the definition of disability under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and provides examples detailing how an individual diagnosed with COVID-19 or post-COVID-19 conditions could be considered to have a disability under these laws.

    According to an EEOC press release, the technical assistance adds the following key guidance:

    • An applicant’s or employee’s COVID-19 may cause impairments that can be considered disabilities under the ADA, regardless of whether the initial case of COVID-19 itself constituted an actual disability.
    • An applicant or employee with mild COVID-19 symptoms that resolve in a few weeks with no other consequences will not have a disability as defined under the ADA that would make them eligible to receive a reasonable accommodation.
    • Applicants or employees with disabilities under the ADA are entitled to a reasonable accommodation when their disability requires it, and the accommodation is not an undue hardship for the employer. They are not automatically entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Employers can choose to do more than the ADA requires.
    • Employers risk violating the ADA if they prevent employees from returning to work once the employee is no longer infectious and is medically able to return to work without posing a threat to infect others.

    The EEOC also clarifies that this technical guidance differs from July guidance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which addresses “Long COVID” as a Disability under Sections 504 and 1557 of the ADA. According to the press release, the DOJ and HHS guidance only focuses on long COVID, while the EEOC’s new technical assistance focuses more broadly on COVID-19 in the context of Title I of the ADA and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which covers employment.

    CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of any COVID-19 guidance as it relates to disability and discrimination under EEO law.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 15, 2021

    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.

    Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate Blocked Nationwide By Georgia Federal Court, Georgia Universities Testified in Favor of the Injunction

    A federal district court judge in Georgia issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate applicable to all federal contractors (Georgia v. Biden (S.D. Ga., No. 21-cv-00163, 12/7/21)). The mandate was scheduled to go into effective January 4, 2022 and had been the subject of several lawsuits in multiple states attempting to block the mandate.

    Georgia was joined by seven states in the litigation. Representatives from Georgia universities testified at the injunction hearing that the mandate would be expensive, onerous and cost them valuable employees who have not yet presented proof of vaccination. The judge ruled that blocking the mandate was not because the vaccine would not be effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19, but rather that President Biden did not have the power to issue such an Executive Order. The judge rued that the mandate went beyond the President’s power to issue orders “addressing administrative and management issues in order to promote efficiency and economy in procurement and contracting.”

    College Employee’s Discussion With Coworkers About Institutional Racism Is Basis For Discriminatory Discharge and Retaliation Claims

    A federal district court judge recently ruled that a discriminatory discharge and retaliation case, based on the plaintiff’s allegations that he was terminated because he facilitated a discussion of institutional racism among coworkers, states a claim of unlawful discrimination based on race. Prior to discharge, the plaintiff was in charge of the college’s program assisting high school students in danger of dropping out (Debro v. Contra Costa Community College (2021 BL 456753, N.D. Cal. No. 3:20-cv-08876, 11/30/21)).

    The plaintiff was given permission in advance to facilitate a discussion of institutional racism among coworkers. Following the discussion, two white subordinates filed race discrimination claims alleging that the plaintiff made them uncomfortable expressing their own views on institutional racism. The plaintiff was subsequently fired by the college after it was concluded that he violated the college’s rules against harassment based on race as he made others uncomfortable expressing their views on institutional racism.

    The federal district court judge concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint adequately stated claims of race discrimination in violation of both federal and state law and will move forward to discovery and trial.

    Labor Advocacy Group Files Complaint With NLRB Alleging That the NCAA Has Misclassified College and University Sports Players as Student-Athletes as Opposed to Employees

    A new advocacy group, the College Basketball Players Association, has filed a complaint with the Indianapolis office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging that the NCAA is violating federal labor law by misclassifying college sports players as student-athletes as opposed to employees. In 2015, the NLRB rejected an attempt by Northwestern University football players to form a union concluding that it would not advance the purposes of U.S. labor law. However, more recently the new NLRB general counsel publicly stated that in her view at least some college athletes are employees. This case could be the vehicle the general counsel may use to bring this issue before the NLRB for review. CUPA-HR will watch this case as it progresses and report on future developments.

    Union Collective Bargaining Between Graduate and Undergraduate Student Teachers and Researchers Continues at Some Private Institutions

    Harvard University and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union announced an agreement on a new four-year collective bargaining agreement in mid-November just hours before a planned strike by a student employee bargaining unit at the university. The Harvard Graduate Students Union is represented by the UAW and consists of a bargaining unit of 4,500 graduate and undergraduate students who work as teachers and researchers. Details of the new four-year contract were not immediately disclosed or available.

    56-Year-Old Baseball Coaching Applicant Loses Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against University Where 31-Year-Old Applicant Was Chosen

    The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana) affirmed a summary judgement decision by the trial court in favor of Indiana University South Bend, rejecting the age discrimination lawsuit filed by a 56-year-old applicant because the university hired a 31-year-old applicant. The court concluded that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was discriminated against because of his age (Reinebold v. Bruce (2021 BL 442817, 7th Cir., No. 21-1092, 11/18/21)).

    There were 94 applicants for the position of head baseball coach. The university chose 10 applicants for telephone interviews, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not among the four chosen from the telephone interviews for a final in-person interview. While the plaintiff had a better career win/loss percentage that the 31-year-old applicant chosen as the new head coach, all four of the telephone interviewers concluded that plaintiff’s presentation was not good, including one interviewer who concluded that the plaintiff’s interview was “One of the worst interviews he had ever experienced.”

    The court concluded that one of the interviewer’s remarks to his barber that “We chose the younger applicant” was a stray remark and did not provide evidence of age discrimination.

    EEOC Loses Attempt to Invalidate Employer’s Negotiation Defense to an Equal Pay Act Claim Brought By a School District Superintendent Who Was Paid Less Than Her Male Predecessor 

    The EEOC recently filed a case on behalf of a school district superintendent under the Equal Pay Act alleging that the school district violated the law by paying the new female superintendent less than it paid her male predecessor.

    The school district defended, alleging that the female superintendent failed to negotiate a higher salary. The EEOC argued that failure to negotiate a higher salary is not a valid defense to an Equal Pay Act claim. The school district countered that the Supreme Court has never ruled that failure to negotiate a higher salary is not a factor other than sex, and other courts have held that that is a valid factor other than sex in these circumstances. The federal district court judge hearing the case sided with the school district holding that, for now, and subject to further consideration, the EEOC failed to show that the defense could not be raised (EEOC v. Hunter–Tannersville Central School District (2021 Bl 460087, N.D.N.Y. No. 1:21-cv-00352, 12/2/21)). The judge concluded whether or not the defense is valid is a decision for the U.S. Court of Appeals.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 21, 2021

    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.

    EEOC Brings Its First COVID-19 Teleworking Denial Lawsuit Under the Americans With Disabilities Act  

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently brought its first denial of a disability accommodation lawsuit connected to the pandemic. The employer in question denied an employee’s request to continue teleworking. The employee claimed that her heart problems heightened her COVID-19 risk. The case was filed in federal district court in Georgia (EEOC v. ISS Facility Services Inc. (N.D. Ga., No. 1:21-CV-3708-SCJ-RDC, comp filed, 9/7/21)).

    The employee’s accommodation request was that she be allowed to work from home two days per week. The plant where she worked reopened following a multi-month period where all employees telecommuted, including the plaintiff. The employee also asked to be allowed to take frequent breaks when working on-site three days per week because her pulmonary condition caused her to have difficulty breathing. The EEOC alleged that while the employee’s accommodation request was rejected, other employees were allowed to work from home. Additionally, the EEOC alleged that the employee was terminated after her accommodation request was denied.

    The EEOC released the following statement about the case: “In light of the additional risks to health and safety created by COVID-19, it is particularly concerning that an employer would take this action several months into a global pandemic.” The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensation for past and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, punitive damages and a permanent injunction.

    Union Decertification Elections and the Percentage of Actual Union Losses Rise in the First Half of 2021 Compared to 2020

    Union decertification elections in the first half of 2021 increased by 30 percent over the number of decertification elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during the same period in 2020. In contrast, NLRB-supervised certification elections increased by only 4 percent during the same period in 2021 as compared to 2020 according to NLRB reports published by the Bloomberg Daily Labor Report.

    Unions lost two-thirds of the decertification elections supervised by the NLRB in the first half of 2021. This is an increase of 64 percent over the number of losses unions incurred in the first half 2020.

    Community College Disability Plans Exempt From ERISA as a Governmental Plan — Federal Court Remands Plaintiff’s Case to State Court to Proceed Under Applicable State Law

    A former community college employee can seek relief from denial of disability benefits under state law as the federal court hearing the case ruled that community college plans are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as a governmental plan. The federal court ruled that relief may be available to the employee under state law, as there is no federal jurisdiction.

    The case involved a former employee of St. Louis Community College who had been receiving disability benefits under the plan for about five years. Disability benefits continuation was denied by the plan administrator. The plan was administered by American General Life insurance. The case was originally filed in state court but was removed to federal court alleging jurisdiction under ERISA. The federal district court judge dismissed the case, concluding that the plan was established by a governmental entity and as such there was no ERISA jurisdiction. The judge remanded the case to proceed in state court to determine whether the plaintiff is subject to relief under state law (Glover v. American General Life Insurance Company (2021 BL 297552, N.D. Ill., no. 3:21-cv-50205, 8/6/21)).

    Former Director of University Family Law Clinic Who Was Denied a Permanent Position to Head the Clinic and a Professorship Alleges Ageism

    A Pennsylvania attorney who was over 60 when he was recruited to run the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Law Family Law Clinic has filed an age discrimination lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 after he was passed over when the position became a full-time faculty position and the university allegedly chose an attorney who was under 40 with little experience in parental custody issues routinely handled by the clinic (Congelio v. University of Pittsburgh (W.D. Pa. No. 2:21-cv-902, complaint filed 7/13/21)).

    According to the age discrimination complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the person who was hired for the position and as a faculty member was not licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania where the university and the law clinic are located. The plaintiff was a visiting professor at the law school when he was not selected for the position to continue running the clinic with the accompanying full-time faculty appointment.



    Source link