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.”
Share This Article:
