Category: Higher Ed News

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

    HR and the Courts — January 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2024

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

    Medical School Surgeon Awarded $15 Million in Damages Resulting From Biased Harassment Investigation

    A federal trial court jury awarded a medical school surgeon $15 million in damages. The jury concluded that the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital medical school’s sex harassment investigation of the plaintiff, who was accused of harassment and sexually assaulting a female medical school resident, was biased against males (Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, et al (Case No. 2:20-cv-02967, E.D. Pa. 12/11/23)). The plaintiff claimed that prior to the incident, he had an “unblemished” reputation. He claimed that due to the medical school’s mishandling of the disciplinary proceeding, he had been labelled a “rapist,” had been ostracized by professional colleagues, and had suffered damages to his livelihood.

    The incident, subject to the lawsuit, involved a pool party at the plaintiff’s home in 2018. The plaintiff alleged that the medical resident became sexually aggressive toward him without his consent, and he was too intoxicated to resist. The plaintiff claims to have reported the incident to the hospital and found that the resident had filed a complaint against him, which resulted in the allegedly anti-male biased investigation and proceedings. Prior to the verdict, the medical school filed a motion for mistrial, alleging that the “belligerent” treatment of the court by the plaintiff’s counsel unduly influenced the jury. As of writing, there has been no action on the defendant’s motion.

    LSU Associate Athletic Director Claims Race and Sex Discrimination, Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment in Lawsuit

    A federal district court judge granted partial summary judgement dismissing some charges brought against Louisiana State University by a terminated, former associate athletic director, but allowed some allegations of race and sex retaliatory discrimination and hostile work environment to move forward to a jury trial against the university’s board of supervisors (Lewis v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana State University (2023 BL 437930, M.D. La., No. 3-21-cv-00198, Partial summary judgement, 12/1/23)).

    The university argued that the former associate athletic director was fired in a shake-up made by a new university football coach, which had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race or sex. However, the new coach denied at deposition that he made the decision to fire the associate athletic director, creating a factual dispute that the court ruled should go to a jury. The federal judge concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations of a sexually hostile work environment should proceed to a jury trial as well as the allegations that she was denied a pay raise and ultimately fired because she is a Black woman.

    NCAA Proposes Plan to Allow Institutions to Pay Student-Athletes

    The NCAA proposed a plan in December 2023 to allow some institutions to invest at least $30,000 into an educational trust for at least half of their student-athletes to address the ongoing controversy over payments to student-athletes. Commentators point out that there will be many challenges to the new plan, including possibly running afoul of Title IX. Moreover, the plan will not make the pending Fair Labor Standards Act and National Labor Relations Act student-athlete claims go away.

    Commentators also point out that the proposal does not address the pending class action damage claim filed against the NCAA in the name, image and likeness (NIL) litigation, which is scheduled for trial in January 2025. Plaintiffs in that class action are claiming damages of $4.5 billion as a result of the NCAA’s past ban on NIL payments, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston in August 2021 on anti-trust grounds.

    Federal Judge Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim Against Princeton

    A federal district court judge recently granted a motion to dismiss filed by Princeton University in a case brought by a former budget analyst who claims she was fired because of her religious beliefs when she refused to comply with COVID-19 protocols, including wearing a mask (McKinley . Princeton University (Case No. 3:22-cv-05069, D. N.J. 15/5/23)).

    The case was initially dismissed because the complaint did not mention any specific religion or set of beliefs. The court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to refile and correct that omission. The plaintiff’s amended complaint contained allegations that “my body is my temple” and “decries… any and all abuse against life.” In dismissing the case, the judge concluded that the plaintiff’s beliefs appear to be a collection of general moral commandments. The court found that the plaintiff’s personal moral code and beliefs do not constitute a comprehensive system of beliefs that could be called a religion.

    Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Former UMass Soccer Coach’s Age Discrimination Case

    A Massachusetts state appeals court reversed the dismissal of a former women’s soccer coach’s age discrimination complaint (Matz v. University of Massachusetts–Amherst (Mass App Ct No. 22-P-1162, 12/7/23)). The coach, who was 51 years old, filed the claim alleging that his termination was because the university wanted to hire a younger coach and that the stated reasons for his termination were a pretext.

    In dismissing the case, the university claimed the coach was terminated because of “an undisputed poor record” and “student criticism of his coaching abilities.” The appellate court recognized that the coach’s performance review concluded that he needed improvement and that there were student criticisms of his coaching abilities. Nonetheless, the appellate court held that the record contains “numerous positive reviews, inconsistent with the [2015 season] criticisms,” from which a jury could find he was terminated because of his age. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff raised a claim by a member of a protected class, who was performing his job sufficiently, and his allegations could raise reasonable speculation about discrimination.

    California Jury Awards Nurse $41.5 million in Damages in Retaliatory Discharge, Whistleblower Case

    A neonatal intensive care nurse who was fired after 30 years of service to her employer was awarded a California jury verdict of $41.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages as a result of her discharge, which she claimed was in retaliation for raising safety issues. The California state court jury awarded the plaintiff $1.3 million in lost wages, $1.2 million in future lost wages, $1.5 million in past mental suffering, $7.5 million in future mental suffering, $15 million in punitive damages against the hospital, and $15 million in punitive damages against the Kaiser Foundation.

    According to the hospital, the plaintiff was fired after she was found reclining in the neonatal unit, talking on her personal phone with her feet resting on an isolette that had a neonatal infant inside. The plaintiff claimed that the stated reason for discharge was a pretext and that the real reason for her discharge was that she reported a supervisor who refused to report that the father of a patient was present in the hospital with a knife, creating an unsafe situation in the hospital (Gatchalian v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et. al. (Case No.  21STCV15300 Ca. Sup Ct. L.A. Cty. Jury Verdict 12/16/23)).



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — December 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — December 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 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.

    University of California May Test Federal Ban on Hiring Undocumented Workers

    The University of California may be the first public institution to challenge whether the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) applies to state entities, including public colleges and universities. The IRCA prohibits U. S. employers from hiring undocumented workers.

    On November 20, 2023, the University of California postponed plans to go forward with a self-imposed deadline of November 30, 2023, to initiate a plan to hire undocumented workers. The university has decided to study the issue further before deciding on a specific course of action. The Supreme Court has dealt with the constitutionality of federal regulation of state employers on multiple occasions in the past, having come down on both sides of the issue. We will follow developments in this area as they unfold.

    Texas Community College Wins Suit Brought by Professor Who Commented on Race and COVID-19 Policies

    Collin College in Texas prevailed in partial summary judgement against a former professor who sued alleging First Amendment free speech retaliation in the non-renewal of his teaching contract. He claimed his contract was terminated because of his outspoken views as a private citizen on public issues including race relations in Dallas, Confederate monuments and his criticism of the college’s COVID-19 policies.

    The court granted part of the college’s motion to dismiss because the college’s policies were not facially unconstitutional. However, the federal court denied each side’s motions for summary judgement on the professor’s claims that the college’s policies were overboard in their restriction of his speech, holding that the issue should be reserved for decision until factual questions are resolved (Phillips v. Collin Community College District (E.D. Tex. No. 22-cv-00184, 11/4/23)).

    Law Professor Sues Northwestern University, Claiming Age Discrimination

    A 78-year-old law professor has sued his university employer claiming age-based salary discrimination. The professor, who is tenured and taught at the law school for 42 years, claims he has been consistently paid substantially less than “significantly younger, less experienced and less tenured” comparators (Postlewaite v. Northwestern University (N.D. Ill. No 1:23-cv-15729, Comp filed 11/7/23)).

    The professor claims to be “a preeminent scholar” in the field of tax law and started his law school’s lucrative Master of Laws in Taxation program, which he claims has been the school’s “highest ranked specialty department” for 17 of the last 19 years. The professor alleges that he has been awarded lower base-salary increases than his younger counterparts. He further alleges that for the academic year 2022-23, his salary was $7,000 less than the 50th percentile and $55,000 less than the 75th percentile, even though those percentiles equated to 20 and 32 years, respectively, of total teaching while he has completed 49 years of total legal academic teaching.

    The lawsuit was filed in federal court and alleges violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act.

    Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision on UPS Driver’s Disability Accommodation

    The Supreme Court declined to review a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case in which the 4th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a driver’s disability accommodation request. The driver requested that he be allowed to drive a smaller truck with softer suspension to accommodate his hip and back bursitis disability, which caused him severe pain (Hannah v. United Parcel Service (Case No. 23-264 US Sup Ct, cert den. 11/6/23)).

    The 4th Circuit decision, which the Supreme Court let stand, concluded that the employee’s request for an accommodation was not reasonable because the request altered the “essential elements” of the employee’s job. The court concluded that if the driver was given the accommodation to drive a smaller truck, he would not be able to complete the daily work load requirement of his existing driver position.

    Tesla Allowed to Ban Union Shirts

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an NLRB decision holding that Tesla violated the NLRA when it required its production employees to wear black Tesla-monogrammed uniform work shirts and did not allow production workers to wear black union-insignia work shirts. The decision of the three-judge panel was unanimous in overturning the NLRB ruling against Tesla (Tesla v. NLRB (5th Cir. No. 22-60493 11/14/23)).

    While Tesla had banned the wearing of union-insignia work shirts, it allowed production employees to wear Tesla-insignia work shirts with a union insignia pinned on the shirt. Tesla had argued unsuccessfully to the NLRB that its rule was necessary to prevent damage to cars and to help supervisors distinguish between production employees and other employees at the company’s California facility. The Court of Appeals decision allows Tesla to continue to enforce its prior policy requiring Tesla-insignia work shirts, with the employee’s option of pinning on a union insignia.

    Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Gymnastic Coach’s Wrongful Termination and Defamation Lawsuits

    A Pennsylvania state appellate court affirmed a trial court dismissal of a former Pennsylvania State University gymnastic coach’s lawsuit. The former coach alleged defamation and violation of his employment contract when the university terminated his contract after investigating allegations that he created a hostile environment for gymnasts. The three-judge appellate panel adopted the decision of the trial court judge, concluding that the university had good cause for firing the coach and that the athletic director’s statement about prior accusations against him had not been defamatory (Thompson v. Pennsylvania State University (Case no. 1460 MDA 2022, 11/28/23)).

    The appeals court ruled that the gymnastic coach’s high profile in collegiate sports made him a limited public figure and that the university’s reaction to allegations of mistreatment of athletes were matters of public concern. That meant that the plaintiff must show “actual malice” in order to prove defamation in these circumstances. The appellate court concluded that the university’s actions did not rise to the level of “actual malice.”



    Source link

  • Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Paid Leave – CUPA-HR

    Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Paid Leave – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 14, 2023

    On October 25, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on federal paid leave. This comes as congressional Democrats and Republicans have shown interest in finding bipartisan consensus for a federal paid leave program. The hearing also provided policymakers and witnesses the opportunity to discuss the promise and drawbacks of paid leave proposals.

    Increasing employee access to paid leave was a primary focus of the hearing. Both sides of the aisle agreed that all workers will need to take leave during their careers without the obligation to juggle work requirements. Policymakers highlighted that 70 percent of Americans want national paid leave and that 72 percent of Americans who are not currently working cite caregiving and family responsibilities as the main reason. To address these issues, Democrats argued for a federally mandated paid leave program, while Republicans worried that a one-size-fits-all program could limit employer-provided paid leave options and be difficult to implement on a wide scale.

    Witnesses Describe Potential Benefits of Federal Paid Leave

    Some of the witnesses discussed the benefits of a federal paid leave program, concluding that better access to paid leave would benefit workers, employers and the economy. Jocelyn Frye, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, stated that offering paid leave tends to benefit both workers and employers through increased labor force participation (both for women and generally), worker retention, and wage growth. Ben Verhoeven, president of Peoria Gardens Inc., added that investing in paid leave gave him better return on investment than his capital investments, as implementing paid leave increased business growth and employee retention and promotions.

    Objection to a One-Size-Fits-All Leave Program

    Despite these benefits, Elizabeth Milito, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business’s Small Business Legal Center, said that employers would face trade-offs under a federal paid leave program. Milito argued that employers operating on the same amount of funds but under new federal benefit requirements would be obliged to provide paid leave as a benefit, leading to some employers being unable to provide higher compensation or other benefits like health insurance. Rachel Greszler, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said that in response to state paid leave programs, some companies choose to send workers to the state program first and then supplement the paid leave benefit to provide 100 percent wage replacement. This creates an administrative burden for the employee, who receives full wage replacement only if they participate in both paid leave programs.

    Republicans and their witnesses also said that a federal program would require flexibility and simplicity to be most effective. Milito and Greszler concurred that most small businesses do not have a qualified HR professional to deal with additional compliance needs. Greszler also stated that the biggest unintended consequence of a one-size-fits-all approach would be a rigid structure that does not work for most employees and businesses. She specified that a carve-out for small businesses or the ability to opt in to a federal program would be most appropriate.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor for any updates on federal paid leave programs and will keep members apprised of any new developments.



    Source link

  • Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 9, 2023

    On October 23, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule that aims to improve the H-1B program by simplifying the application process, increasing the program’s efficiency, offering more advantages and flexibilities to both petitioners and beneficiaries, and strengthening the program’s integrity measures.

    Background

    The H-1B visa program is pivotal for many sectors, particularly higher education. It permits U.S. employers to employ foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or higher or its equivalent. The program is subject to an annual limit of 65,000 visas, with an additional allocation of 20,000 visas reserved for foreign nationals who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher. Certain workers are exempt from this cap, including those at higher education institutions or affiliated nonprofit entities and nonprofit or governmental research organizations.

    Highlights of the Proposed Rule

    Prompted by challenges with the H-1B visa lottery, USCIS has prioritized a proposed rule to address the system’s integrity. The move comes after a surge in demand for H-1B visas led to the adoption of a lottery for fair distribution. However, with the fiscal year 2024 seeing a historic 758,994 registrations and over half of the candidates being entered multiple times, there was concern over potential exploitation to skew selection chances. This proposed rule is a direct response to strengthen the registration process and prevent fraud.

    Beyond addressing lottery concerns, the proposal makes critical revisions to underlying H-1B regulations. It seeks to formalize policies currently in place through guidance and tweak specific regulatory aspects.

    Amending the Definition of a “Specialty Occupation.” At present, a “specialty occupation” is identified as a job that requires unique, specialized knowledge in fields like engineering, medicine, education, business specialties, the arts, etc., and it typically mandates a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific area or its equivalent. USCIS is proposing to refine the definition of a “specialty occupation” to ensure that the required degree for such positions is directly related to the job duties. The proposal specifies that general degrees without specialized knowledge do not meet the criteria, and petitioners must prove the connection between the degree field(s) and the occupation’s duties. The rule would allow for different specific degrees to qualify for a position if each degree directly relates to the occupation’s responsibilities. For example, a bachelor’s degree in either education or chemistry could be suitable for a chemistry teacher’s position if both are relevant to the job. The changes emphasize that the mere possibility of qualifying for a position with an unrelated degree is insufficient, and specific degrees must impart highly specialized knowledge pertinent to the role.

    Amending the Criteria for Specialty Occupation Positions. USCIS is proposing updates to the criteria defining a “specialty occupation” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal includes a clarification of the term “normally,” which, in the context of a specialty occupation, indicates that a bachelor’s degree is typically, but not always, necessary for the profession. USCIS is aiming to standardize this term to reflect a type, standard, or regular pattern, reinforcing that the term “normally” does not equate to “always.”

    Extending F-1 Cap-Gap Protection. USCIS is proposing to revise the Cap-Gap provisions, which currently extend employment authorization for F-1 students awaiting H-1B visa approval until October 1 of the fiscal year for which H–1B visa classification has been requested. The Cap-Gap refers to the period between the end of an F-1 student’s Optional Practical Training (OPT) and the start of their H-1B status, which can lead to a gap in lawful status or employment authorization. The new proposal seeks to extend this period until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B visa is filed, or until the visa is approved, to better address processing delays and reduce the risk of employment authorization interruption. To be eligible, the H-1B petition must be legitimate and filed on time. This change is intended to support the U.S. in attracting and maintaining skilled international workers by providing a more reliable transition from student to professional status.

    Cap-Exempt Organizations. USCIS is redefining which employers are exempt from the H-1B visa cap. The proposed changes involve revising the definition of “nonprofit research organization” and “governmental research organization” from being “primarily engaged” in research to conducting research as a “fundamental activity.” This proposed change would enable organizations that might not focus primarily on research, but still fundamentally engage in such activities, to qualify for the exemption. Additionally, USCIS aims to accommodate beneficiaries not directly employed by a qualifying organization but who still perform essential, mission-critical work.

    Deference. USCIS is proposing to codify a policy of deference to prior adjudications of Form I-129 petitions, as delineated in the USCIS Policy Manual, mandating that officers give precedence to earlier decisions when the same parties and material facts recur. This proposal, however, includes stipulations that such deference is not required if there were material errors in the initial approval, if substantial changes in circumstances or eligibility have occurred, or if new and pertinent information emerges that could negatively influence the eligibility assessment.

    Next Steps

    While this summary captures key elements of the proposed changes, our members should be aware that the rule contains other important provisions that warrant careful review. These additional provisions could also significantly impact the H-1B visa program and its beneficiaries, and it is crucial for all interested parties to examine the proposed rule in its entirety to understand its full implications.

    USCIS is accepting public comment on its proposal through December 22, 2023. CUPA-HR is evaluating the proposed revisions and will be working with other higher education associations to submit comprehensive comments for the agency’s consideration. As USCIS moves towards finalizing the proposals within this rulemaking, potentially through one or more final rules depending on the availability of agency resources, CUPA-HR will keep its members informed of all significant updates and outcomes.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Submits Comments in Response to DOL’s Overtime Rulemaking – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Submits Comments in Response to DOL’s Overtime Rulemaking – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 2023

    On November 7, CUPA-HR, joined by 49 other higher education associations, submitted comments in response to the Department of Labor (DOL) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to update the salary threshold for the “white collar” exemptions to the FLSA overtime pay requirements from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 per year — a nearly 70% increase.* Additionally, the department proposes to automatically increase the salary level every three years.

    CUPA-HR’s comments highlight the concerns from institutions across the country and ask that the DOL consider four recommendations:

    1) The DOL Should Not Update the Salary Threshold at This Time

    The DOL most recently updated the minimum salary threshold in 2020. CUPA-HR welcomed updates at the time, given the minimum threshold had not been successfully updated since 2004 and the level proposed in 2019 was appropriate at the time. With the most recent update becoming effective in 2020, we believe it is too soon for the DOL to move forward with another update to the minimum salary threshold.

    2) The DOL Should Lower the Proposed Minimum Salary Threshold and Account for Room and Board

    If the DOL does choose to move forward with an increase to the threshold, we believe that the proposed minimum salary threshold is too high. Updating the salary level from $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $1,158 per week ($60,209 per year) leads to a nearly 70% increase, which will result in a large number of employees being reclassified to nonexempt status. To avoid having to reclassify certain employees to nonexempt status, we ask that the DOL consider room and board as part of an employee’s total salary when considering if such employees meet the minimum salary threshold.

    3) The DOL Should Not Implement Automatic Updates to the Salary Threshold

    In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to implement automatic updates to the salary threshold that would occur every three years. CUPA-HR believes that the DOL does not have the authority to implement automatic updates under the FLSA and that automatic increases will negatively impact institutions’ budgets, their ability to provide merit-based increases, and employee morale.

    4) The DOL Should Extend the Effective Date of Any Final Rule Implementing a Higher Salary Threshold

    According to the NPRM, the DOL anticipates providing 60 days for compliance with a final rule once it is published by the agency. CUPA-HR believes 60 days is too short a timeframe to assess the impact, plan, and implement appropriate changes on campus. Instead, we ask for an effective date that is at least 180 days after any final rule is published.

    CUPA-HR’s president and chief executive officer, Andy Brantley, shared the following: “To say campuses are extremely concerned with the Department of Labor’s proposed rule increasing the minimum salary threshold to the FLSA overtime pay requirements by almost 70% would be an understatement. Employees in positions that clearly meet the three criteria to qualify as white-collar employees who are exempt from the federal overtime pay requirement will be forced into nonexempt positions.”

    In addition to submitting these comments, CUPA-HR also joined the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity’s comment letter addressing concerns with the proposed rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates relating to this proposed rule and our advocacy efforts as the department moves toward finalizing these regulations.

    * The discrepancy between our figure of $60,209 and the DOL’s preamble figure of $55,068 arises from DOL’s own projections based on anticipated wage growth. The DOL’s proposed rule is rooted in 2022 data (yielding the $55,068 figure), but a footnote in the NPRM confirms that the salary threshold will definitely change by the time the final rule is issued to reflect the most recent data. Our comments, aiming to respond to the most probable salary threshold at the time a final rule is released, references the DOL’s projected figure for Q1 2024, which is $60,209. We do not believe DOL will be able to issue a final rule before Q1 2024, so we are incorporating this projected figure into our response to the NPRM. In essence, our goal is to provide members with a clearer picture of the likely salary figure when the final rule comes into play.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — November 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — November 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 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.

    California Becomes First State to Mandate Workplace Violence Prevention Plans

    Under a new law, the first broad state law of its kind, most employers in California must now adopt workplace violence prevention plans by next summer. Before now, hospitals in California were the only group of employers required by state law to adopt workplace violence prevention plans. What specifically must be included in the plan is vague under the terms of the statute. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) will be responsible for implementation of this statute and stated that it would adopt an appropriate workplace violence set of standards for employers.

    The law will require employers to establish written plans, employee training and tracking of violent acts. Plans must be specific for each workplace and tailored to meet the individual circumstances of each setting. Commentators are looking for further guidance from Cal/OSHA on the specific details that must be covered by employer plans.

    Mandatory Time Off for Reproductive Loss

    California and Illinois are leading the way in the adoption of state laws mandating that employers guarantee time off following a miscarriage or other reproductive loss to ensure leave for grieving. The laws guarantee employees up to five days of paid or unpaid leave following a reproductive loss including miscarriage and still birth, as well as failed adoption, invitro or surrogacy. Utah has adopted a similar policy for state employees, and several cities have adopted similar statutes. Some national employers already voluntarily include reproductive losses in time-off provisions for employees.

    NLRB Lowers the Bar to Prove Joint Employer Status — May Impact Student-Athlete Cases

    The National Labor Relations Board rescinded a Trump-era regulation requiring that an alleged joint employer must have “direct and immediate” control exercised over employees to prove joint employer status. Under the new standard, if an alleged joint employer indirectly controls job terms or conditions of employment, it is a joint employer subject to NLRB jurisdiction. This will have immediate application to the ongoing dispute as to whether the NCAA and athletic conferences are joint employers of student-athletes, as they exercise control over rules that student-athletes must adhere to.

    This also may affect the NLRB’s attempt to exert jurisdiction over student-athletes at public colleges and universities. While the NLRB has no jurisdiction over public entities, its general counsel is asserting jurisdiction over those student-athletes at public institutions based on the legal theory that the NCAA and/or the athletic conferences are joint employers.

    Student-Athlete Unionization Issue May Affect Smaller Institutions and Athletic Programs

    Two additional, separate NLRB cases are winding their way to a decision on whether student-athletes meet the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act and are therefore eligible to unionize. A West Coast case involves the NLRB issuing a complaint claiming that the University of Southern California, the NCAA, and the PAC-12 Conference are joint employers of student basketball and football players and have unlawfully refused to bargain with any union.

    An East Coast case involves a union petition filed by the Service Employees International Union to represent Dartmouth College basketball players. Dartmouth has argued that its basketball players are not employees under the NLRA, as they do not receive sports scholarships and the basketball program does not generate money for the institution.

    Commentators at Bloomberg have concluded that decisions allowing unionization of college athletes may have the most serious repercussions for smaller institutions and even small athletic programs that do not generate revenue at large institutions.

    Class Actions Proliferate Related to Washington State’s Pay Transparency Law  

    A series of 40 or so class actions filed against major employers in Washington state — including Adidas, Home Depot and Marriott — will test the reach of the new Washington state job ad and pay transparency law. The Washington state law, like similar statutes in California, Colorado and New York, requires employers to provide pay ranges and benefits information in job ads, with the aim of improving pay equity for women and employees of color.

    The Washington and California laws also provide plaintiff applicants with a private right to sue, with Washington’s statute incentivizing plaintiffs to sue. It grants plaintiffs an award of actual damages proven or $5000, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees upon proving a pay transparency violation.

    Former Women’s Basketball Coach Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

    The former head women’s basketball coach at the University of Montana has lost the sex discrimination lawsuit she filed following her termination after a poor win-loss record and serious culture complaints made by players and parents, including players threatening to leave the university if she remained as coach. The court also granted a positive inference to the university’s stated rationale for termination under the “same actor” doctrine, where in this case the same athletic director that hired the plaintiff was the person who made the decision to fire the plaintiff (Schweyen v. Univ of Montana–Missoula (2023 BL 390525, D. Mont. 9.21-cv-00138, 10/31/23)).

    The prior coach had a compiled 38-year performance of winning 75% of her games, while the plaintiff had only one winning season in the four years she served as head coach. The court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to compare herself to a men’s basketball coach who had lost team players to transfer, citing multiple federal cases that have rejected arguments that disparate treatment between men’s and women’s sports teams creates an inference of discriminatory animus under Title VII.



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released its final rule amending the standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The rule replaces the board’s 2020 final rule on the same issue and greatly expands joint employer status under the NLRA.

    The final rule establishes joint employer status of two or more employers if they “share or co-determine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment,” such as wages, benefits and other compensation; work and scheduling; hiring and discharge; discipline; workplace health and safety; supervision; and assignment and work rules. Today’s final rule finds that either indirect control or reserved control may stand alone as sufficient for finding that a joint employer relationship exists. The final rule specifically states that an entity may be considered a joint employer if it possesses the authority to control one or more essential terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that authority is exercised, or if it exercises the power to indirectly control one or more terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that power is exercised directly. This is a departure from the 2020 rule, which found that an entity must exercise substantial direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment to be considered a joint employer.

    Joint employment has recently been a focal point for higher ed institutions as disputes around the worker classification of student-athletes continue. Last year, an NLRB regional office announced it would be pursuing a complaint by a student-athlete advocacy group that filed an unfair labor practice charge against that the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA, alleging that the three entities are joint employers who violated the NLRA by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ non-employees.” The case is set to be heard by an administrative law judge in November, but a final decision could take years to come to fruition.

    This final rule could have significant implications for private institutions, as they fall under the NLRB’s jurisdiction. Public institutions are not impacted by this rulemaking, as the NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public entities.

    CUPA-HR is assessing the final rule and will provide members with more information as it becomes available.



    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    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.



    Source link

  • Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 18, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the Department of Education released a report titled “Strategies for Increasing Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education.” The report was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling against affirmative action in college admissions and it outlines ways institutions and states can adapt to prioritize improved accessibility to educational opportunities for underserved students.

    The Report

    In an introductory message for the report, Secretary of Education Matthew Cardona emphasized the enduring commitment to equal opportunity and student body diversity in higher education on behalf of his department and the president’s administration. While condemning the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action, Cardona pledged the Department of Education’s and the Biden administration’s support in promoting inclusivity and equity and stimulating long-term prosperity.

    The Department of Education’s report centers around four areas that the administration believes institutions should consider when working to promote diversity and opportunity on campus: student recruitment, admissions, financial aid and student retention. The report focuses mostly on promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in these areas to ensure underserved students have an equitable opportunity to be admitted into and succeed in postsecondary programs.

    Relevant to higher education HR, the report discusses the need for improved training of admissions officers and other employees to ensure consistent, equitable evaluations of applicants.

    Moving Forward

    Prior to the release of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, stakeholders also raised concerns regarding the impact such a decision could have on hiring and employment decisions as well as programs or initiatives focused on creating diverse and inclusive workplaces that align with institutional values. The decision to strike down race-based affirmative action in admissions practices could leave employers open to future legal challenges regarding their hiring decisions and other diversity programs.

    CUPA-HR endorses efforts to promote inclusive communities on campuses across the nation. The government relations team continues to track developments impacting these efforts and will inform members of updates as they become available.



    Source link

  • Federal Agencies Propose Major Changes to Mental Health Parity Regulations – CUPA-HR

    Federal Agencies Propose Major Changes to Mental Health Parity Regulations – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 11, 2023

    This blog post was contributed by Elena Lynett, JD, senior vice president at Segal, a CUPA-HR Mary Ann Wersch Premier Partner.

    Institutions generally provide comprehensive mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits as part of their commitment to creating a safe and nurturing campus. However, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires that institutions providing MH/SUD benefits ensure parity in coverage between the MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury recently proposed major changes to the MHPAEA regulations for group health plan sponsors and insurers.

    The proposed changes address nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) — a term which references a wide range of medical management strategies and network administrative practices that may impact the scope or duration of MH/SUD benefits. Examples of NQTLs include prior or ongoing authorization requirements, formulary design for prescription drugs, and exclusions of specific treatments for certain conditions.

    If government agencies issue a final rule similar to the proposal, plans will face additional data collection, evaluation, compliance and administrative requirements. The most significant proposed changes are:

    • The “predominant/substantially all” testing that currently applies to financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations under MHPAEA would apply as a threshold test for any NQTL;
    • New data collection requirements, including denial rates and utilization information;
    • A new “meaningful benefits” standard for MH/SUD benefits;
    • Detailed requirements regarding the documented comparative analysis that plans must have for each applicable NQTL;
    • Introduction of a category of NQTLs related to network composition and new rules aimed at creating parity in medical/surgical and MH/SUD networks;
    • Prohibition on separate NQTLs for MH/SUD;
    • For plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a requirement that a named fiduciary would have to review and certify documented comparative analysis as complying with MHPAEA; and
    • For non-federal governmental plans, sunset of the ability to opt out of compliance with the MHPAEA rules.

    For more information on the proposed rules, see Segal’s August 1, 2023 insight.

    The deadline to comment on the proposed rules is October 17, 2023. If interested, your institution may file comments here. CUPA-HR will be filing comments with other associations representing higher education and plan sponsors. As proposed, plans could be expected to comply as early as the first day of any plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2025.



    Source link