Category: Higher Ed News

  • Biden Administration Releases Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration Releases Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2022

    On December 10, the Biden administration issued the Fall 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda), providing the public with insights on what various federal agencies expect to work on in terms of regulatory activity in the near- and long-term.

    In an effort to keep members apprised of upcoming noteworthy regulatory actions, CUPA-HR has read through the Regulatory Agenda and has flagged the following proposed activity:

    Department of Labor

    Wage and Hour Division — Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees

    In April 2022, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addressing overtime pay requirements for certain “white-collar” employees, including executive, administrative, and professional employees, currently exempt from the requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the Regulatory Agenda, one of the goals of the NPRM would be “to update the salary level requirement of the section 13(a)(1) exemption [under the FLSA].”

    Changes to overtime pay requirements have been implemented through regulations under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In May 2016, the Obama administration’s DOL issued a final rule increasing the salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 per year and imposed automatic updates to the threshold every three years. However, court challenges prevented the rule from taking effect and it was permanently enjoined in September 2017. After the Trump administration started the rulemaking process anew, in September 2019, DOL issued a new final rule raising the minimum salary level required for exemption from $23,660 annually to $35,568 annually. This final rule went into effect January 1, 2020, and it remains in effect today.

    DOL’s Statement of Regulatory Priorities, a component of the fall Regulatory Agenda that presents additional information about the most significant regulatory activities planned for the coming year, states that this proposed update will “ensure that middle class jobs pay middle class wages, extending important overtime pay protections to millions of workers and raising their pay.”  Given this statement, it is likely that we will see the Biden administration’s DOL attempt to increase the salary level in the NPRM to something closer to the Obama administration’s proposed level, if not higher.

    Employment and Training Administration — Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States

    In March 2022, DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) plans to issue a NPRM to establish “a new wage methodology for setting prevailing wage levels for H-1B/H-1B1/E-3 and PERM programs consistent with the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” The proposal will likely amend the Trump administration’s final rule that was scheduled to take effect on November 14, 2022, but was subsequently vacated by a federal court in June 2021. The new proposal, which is included in the Department’s Statement of Regulatory Priorities will take into consideration the feedback it received in response to a Request for Information (RFI) on data and methods for determining prevailing wage levels “to ensure fair wages and strengthen protections for foreign and U.S. workers”.

    CUPA-HR filed comments in opposition to the Trump administration’s regulations on the issue and in response to the Biden administration’s RFI.

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration — Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Biden administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plans to release a NPRM to restore provisions of the May 2016 “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” final rule. The Regulatory Agenda set December 2021 as the target date for release, but as of early January, the regulation is still pending review at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

    The proposal seeks “to amend [OSHA’s] recordkeeping regulation to restore the requirement to electronically submit to OSHA information from the OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and OSHA Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) for establishments that meet certain size and industry criteria.” In the Regulatory Agenda, OSHA notes that the current regulations only require electronic submissions from the OSHA Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses), as the Trump administration’s 2019 final rule rescinded the requirements to electronically submit the OSHA Form 300 and OSHA Form 301.

    National Labor Relations Board

    Joint Employer

    In February 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is planning to release a NPRM to potentially amend the standard determining when two employers may be considered joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act. The new standard will revise the 2020 Trump Administration’s final rule, which reversed the Obama-era NLRB decision in the 2015 Browning-Ferris Industries case and established that an entity can only be a joint employer if it actually exercises control over the essential terms and conditions of another employer’s employees. While details of the Democratic-majority NLRB’s NPRM on joint employer status are up in the air, we would expect them to revise the current standard to look something more like the Obama-era decision.

    Department of Education

    Office for Civil Rights — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

    In April 2022, the Department of Education is planning to release a NPRM to amend the “regulations implementing Title IX (…) consistent with the priorities of the Biden-Harris administration,” such as the priorities set forth in Executive Order (EO) 13988, “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation” and EO 14021, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” This NPRM will revise the amendments the Trump administration made through the 2020 Title IX final rule.

    The Department of Education highlighted this new rulemaking in their Statement of Regulatory Priorities. The addition of the rulemaking to the priorities document and the accelerated expected release date of April 2022 from May 2022 as stated in the Spring 2021 Regulatory Agenda indicate that the agency is likely considering this as one of the top regulatory priorities above other proposed actions.

    Department of Homeland Security

    USCIS — Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) plans to release a NPRM in May 2022 to “amend its regulations governing H-1B specialty occupation workers and F-1 students who are the beneficiaries of timely filed H-1B cap-subject petitions.” The NPRM will specifically propose to “revise the regulations relating to ‘employer-employee relationship’ and provide flexibility for start-up entrepreneurs; implement new requirements and guidelines for site visits including in connection with petitions filed by H-1B dependent employers whose basic business information cannot be validated through commercially available data; provide flexibility on the employment start date listed on the petition (in limited circumstances); address “cap-gap” issues; bolster the H-1B registration process to reduce the possibility of misuse and fraud in the H-1B registration system; and clarify the requirement that an amended or new petition be filed where there are material changes, including by streamlining notification requirements relating to certain worksite changes, among other provisions.”

    ICE — Optional Alternative to the Physical Examination Associated With Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9)

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, DHS is planning to issue a NPRM in June 2022 to “revise employment eligibility verification regulations to allow the Secretary to authorize alternative document examination procedures in certain circumstances or with respect to certain employers.”

    Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, DHS has provided temporary flexibility in the Form I-9 verification process to allow for remote inspection of Form I-9 documents in situations where employees work exclusively in a remote setting due to COVID-19-related precautions. While that guidance is only temporary, DHS issued a Request for Public Input (RPI) on October 26, 2021 to determine whether those flexibilities should be kept in place permanently. It is possible that DHS will use that feedback to develop and implement this NPRM.

    CUPA-HR has engaged with DHS on the Form I-9 flexibilities through the pandemic. In December, CUPA-HR sent a letter to DHS requesting the Form I-9 flexibilities be extended past December 31, 2021. DHS announced soon after that the flexibilities would be extended until April 30, 2022. Additionally, CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the RPI based on a recent survey detailing members’ experiences with the Form I-9 verification process flexibilities.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of these proposed regulations and others as they are introduced in the coming year.



    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

  • Federal Court Reinstates OSHA Vaccination and Testing ETS – CUPA-HR

    Federal Court Reinstates OSHA Vaccination and Testing ETS – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 20, 2021

    On December 17, the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the 5th Circuit Court’s emergency motion to stay the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), paving the way for OSHA to continue implementing and enforcing the vaccination and testing requirements for covered employers with 100 or more employees.

    The ETS requires covered employers and employees to be fully vaccinated or in compliance with testing requirements by January 4, 2022. The stay, which was granted in November, temporarily halted OSHA from implementing and enforcing the vaccination and testing requirements. While the stay was in place, it was unclear whether or not OSHA would be able to fully implement the ETS by January 4 or any time after.

    With the recent decision from the 6th Circuit Court, OSHA now plans to implement the ETS as quickly as possible. To account for the timing uncertainty created by the stay, however, OSHA also has announced that it will not issue non-compliance citations for any of the requirements of the ETS before January 10, 2022, and it will not issue non-compliance citations specifically for the ETS’s testing requirements until February 9, 2022, “so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.” OSHA has also vowed to provide compliance assistance to help employers navigate these new requirements and timelines.

    Shortly after the 6th Circuit’s order, a number of groups challenging the ETS filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court seeking to reinstate the stay. Meanwhile, the federal contractor vaccine mandate and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) healthcare worker vaccine mandate remain stayed as litigation continues in several federal courts.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any future legal challenges and decisions made on the OSHA ETS, federal contractor vaccine mandate, and healthcare worker vaccine mandate.



    Source link

  • DHS Extends I-9 Flexibility Guidance Another Four Months – CUPA-HR

    DHS Extends I-9 Flexibility Guidance Another Four Months – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 17, 2021

    On December 15, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a further extension of the flexibilities on Form I-9 compliance requirements that was initially granted last year. The guidance, which was slated to expire on December 31, 2021, has been extended through April 30, 2022.

    The guidance will continue to allow for remote inspection of Form I-9 documents in situations where employees work exclusively in a remote setting due to COVID-19-related precautions. For employees who physically report to work at a company location on any regular, consistent or predictable basis, employers are required to use standard I-9 procedures.

    Earlier this week, CUPA-HR and 11 other higher education associations sent a letter to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ur Jaddou asking for this additional extension in light of the uncertainty posed by the Omicron variant and encouraging DHS to announce the extension on or before December 17, 2021.

    CUPA-HR is grateful for DHS’s swift response and will be submitting comments in response to DHS’s Request for Public Input on document examination practices for Form I-9.



    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

  • CUPA-HR Leads Higher Ed Letter Asking for Further Extension of I-9 Flexibility Guidance – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Leads Higher Ed Letter Asking for Further Extension of I-9 Flexibility Guidance – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 14, 2021

    On December 13, CUPA-HR and ten other higher education associations sent a letter to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ur Jaddou requesting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extend its previously announced flexibilities on Form I-9 compliance requirements through June 30, 2022. The guidance, which has been extended continuously since March 2020 and was amended on April 1, 2021, permits remote inspection of Form I-9 documents in situations where employees work exclusively in a remote setting due to COVID-19-related precautions.

    The guidance is currently slated to expire on December 31, 2021. As such, colleges that have used the remote I-9 accommodation will be required to physically inspect the documents of affected employees no later than three business days once normal operations resume — providing a very limited window in which to inspect the documents of potentially large numbers of employees.

    As the current expiration date is problematic, the CUPA-HR letter requests DHS to extend the I-9 flexibility guidance through the spring semester. The letter highlights two major reasons to extend the guidance past its current expiration date: the uncertainty posed by the Omicron variant and the current guidance’s expiration date falling between two major federal government holidays and in the middle of most college and university winter breaks. Given the need for predictability and the wind-down of university operations before the expiration date, the letter also encourages DHS to announce the requested extension on or before December 17, 2021.

    Please Submit Your Feedback On the I-9 Process

    On a related note, CUPA-HR is requesting your feedback to help our Government Relations team respond to DHS’s Request for Public Input on document examination practices for Form I-9 and the guidance for flexibility created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure we can provide the most comprehensive feedback to DHS as possible, please make sure someone from your institution responds to CUPA-HR’s Survey by 11:00 p.m. ET on December 15. All responses will help us finalize the comments we submit to DHS.



    Source link

  • DOL Issues Final Rule to Increase Federal Contractor Minimum Wage – CUPA-HR

    DOL Issues Final Rule to Increase Federal Contractor Minimum Wage – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 13, 2021

    On November 24, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a final rule implementing President Biden’s Executive Order 14026 (EO), “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” The rule increases the minimum wage for federal government contractors for workers who work on or in connection with a covered federal contract to $15 per hour beginning January 30, 2022, and requires the secretary of labor to annually review and determine the minimum wage amount beginning January 1, 2023.

    As stated above, the final rule establishes standards and procedures for implementing and enforcing the minimum wage protections of Executive Order 14026. Starting January 30, 2022, all agencies will need to include a $15 minimum wage in new contracts, new solicitations, extensions or renewals of an existing contract, and exercises of an option on an existing contract. Under the EO and final rule, contracts with solicitations issued before January 30, 2022, and entered into, on or between January 30 and March 30, 2022 will be exempt from the wage. If such a contract is subsequently extended or renewed or an option is exercised under the contract, the $15 minimum wage will apply.

    Covered Contracts

    According to the EO and as finalized in the rule, the $15 minimum wage requirement only applies to the following contracts:

    • Procurement contracts for services or construction;
    • Contracts for services covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA);
    • Contracts for concessions; and
    • Contracts “entered into with the Federal Government in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.”

    The new minimum wage clause will NOT need to be included in:

    • Federal grants;
    • Contracts or agreements with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act;
    • Procurement contracts for construction that are excluded from coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA);
    • Contracts for services that are exempt from coverage under the SCA; and
    • Contracts for the manufacturing of materials, supplies, articles or equipment to the Federal Government.

    Covered Workers

    The WHD defines a covered worker in the final rule as “any person engaged in performing work on or in connection with a contract covered by the EO, and whose wages under such contract are governed by the [Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)], the SCA or the DBA, regardless of the contractual relationship alleged to exist between the individual and the employer.” A worker who performs “on” a covered contract is defined as “any worker who directly performs the specific services called for by the contract’s terms,” and a worker who performs “in connection with” a covered contract is defined as “any worker who performs work activities that, although are not the specific services called for by the contract’s terms, are necessary to the performance of those specific services.”

    One exemption to the rule’s minimum wage requirement is provided for FLSA-covered workers performing work “in connection with” covered contracts for less than 20 percent of their working hours in a given workweek.

    The final rule also clarifies that certain employees who are exempt from the minimum wage protections under the FLSA are also not entitled to the $15 minimum wage protection of the EO and final rule. In an FAQ page on the EO and final rule, the WHD provides “learners, apprentices, messengers and full-time students employed under certificates pursuant to FLSA sections 14(a) and (b)” as examples of individuals who are excluded from the EO’s minimum wage requirements.

    Additional Considerations

    As mentioned above, the secretary of labor will be granted authority to annually review and increase the minimum wage beginning January 1, 2023. The minimum wage will be increased by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers to address inflation.

    Additionally, the EO and final rule change compensation for tipped employees working on or in connection with a covered contract. Beginning January 30, 2022, such tipped employees must be paid a wage of at least $10.50 per hour. By January 1, 2024, the tip credit must be eliminated for such employees, and they must earn the same minimum hourly rate that other covered employees are entitled to.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates and resources to aid institutions as the new minimum wage final rule becomes effective.



    Source link

  • Biden Administration’s Vaccine Mandates Face Legal Challenges in Court – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration’s Vaccine Mandates Face Legal Challenges in Court – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 9, 2021

    Over the past several months, the Biden administration announced and implemented several vaccine and testing mandates for federal workers, federal contractors and private employers. States and business stakeholders quickly responded with lawsuits against the administration’s mandates, which continue to be challenged in courts around the country. To keep CUPA-HR members apprised of the legal challenges, we have detailed below the most recent litigation updates for the federal contractor vaccine mandate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) vaccine mandate for healthcare workers — all three of which are on hold pending the various lawsuits’ outcomes.

    Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate

    On September 9, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042 (EO), “Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors,” as part of his “Path Out of the Pandemic” plan. The EO tasks the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force with implementing guidance that requires all federal contractors to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for their employees. The current effective date is January 4, 2022, meaning all covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated by January 18, 2022. A federal court recently enjoined the government from implementing the EO, however, so it remains unclear when, if ever, the mandate will go into effect.

    Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the mandate arguing that the Biden administration does not have authority to require vaccinations, and two federal courts have already issued decisions. On November 30, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a preliminary injunction against the mandate, stopping enforcement in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee only. On December 7, a federal judge at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted a motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction against the vaccination mandate for federal contractors, halting enforcement for federal contractors in all states. The Biden administration is expected to challenge this decision.

    OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard

    On November 5, OSHA issued its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS requiring employers with 100 or more employees to implement vaccination or testing policies for their workers. As it currently stands, the ETS requires covered employers and employees to be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022. A federal court has enjoined OSHA from implementing the ETS, however, and it remains unclear whether the ETS will be in effect on January 4 or anytime thereafter.

    Over three dozen lawsuits were filed against the rule, with at least one in all 12 circuit courts in the country. On November 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted an emergency motion to stay the ETS, and on November 12, it extended the stay while it further reviewed the motion for a permanent injunction, ordering OSHA to stop implementation and enforcement of the ETS until further court order. Due to the high volume of cases at various circuit courts, a lottery was held on November 18 to determine which circuit court would hear the case to make a sweeping decision, which the 6th Circuit won, meaning the stay remains in place until the 6th Circuit makes a decision on the motion. It is likely the stay will remain in place until at least December 10; that said, the 6th Circuit can decide to lift the stay before that if it chooses to do so.

    CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers

    On November 5, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a rule requiring healthcare workers in facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds be vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 4, 2022. This rule also has been stayed by federal courts.

    Four lawsuits were filed against CMS challenging the agency’s authority to issue the rule. On November 29, the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri blocked implementation and enforcement in the 10 states that challenged the rule: Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Hampshire. On November 30, the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the mandate nationwide, except in the 10 states impacted by the Missouri ruling. Decisions in the two other lawsuits are still pending.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor the ongoing litigation for all of the vaccine and testing mandates and will keep members apprised of any decisions that will impact institutions’ compliance efforts.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 17, 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 Appeals Court Panel Expresses Skepticism Regarding New York City Teachers’ Challenge to the Constitutionality of the New York City Vaccine Mandate for All Public School Teachers

    In a case which could have ramifications for public and private college and university vaccine mandates, a group of New York City teachers recently argued that the New York City mandate that all public school teachers have at least one vaccine shot violates their basic rights under the U.S. Constitution. The case was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The New York City mandate requires all teachers to have at least one vaccine shot in order to continue teaching or be suspended without pay. The mandate allows them to continue to receive benefits during the suspension, but bars them from teaching elsewhere (Maniscalco v. New York City Department of Education (2nd Cir: Argued Oct 14, 2021)). The case is one of dozens across the country contesting the validity of public and private employer vaccine mandates.

    The teachers’ counsel argued that teaching is a profession and the vaccine mandate takes away the fundamental right of teachers to teach. One of the federal appeals court judges commented during the argument that she was having difficulty understanding why the mandate was “irrational” as argued by the teachers’ counsel.

    Bipolar Teacher Loses Her Disability Discrimination Appeal Following Her Discharge for Violating the School District’s Rules on Sharing Religious Beliefs

    In a case having general applicability to the Americans With Disabilities Act termination claims and requests for accommodation brought in the higher education context, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee affirmed a school district’s decision to terminate a teacher for inappropriate communication with students during her paid suspension. The appeals court concluded that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the teacher’s misconduct caused her discharge, notwithstanding her diagnosis of suffering from bipolar disorder (Lockhart v. Marietta City Schools (6th Cir., No. 20-4308, 10/15/21)).

    The plaintiff was put on paid leave after telling her students that she had a deeply religious experience while shoveling snow in which she lost consciousness, was carried away and now God was speaking through her. She was instructed not to communicate with students while on paid leave. She violated the instruction and sent a student a 12-page letter telling them not to trust school administrators and to “Trust me, I am the one you need to trust. I dearly love you, have they told you they love you?”

    The teacher argued that the school district should have accommodated her disability rather than terminate her. The court concluded that the school district was not required to excuse her misconduct during leave and that she repeatedly violated the terms of her administrative leave before even remotely asking for an accommodation request.

    Some States May Alter, Change and/or Challenge OSHA’s New Vaccine Rules

    Some states, through their respective attorney generals, have signaled that they may contest of try to alter the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s vaccine mandate. OSHA allows by agreement some 26 states plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to adopt their own workplace safety rules. Those states include seven states with Republican attorney generals who have taken the position that a vaccine mandate is “disastrous and counterproductive.” The attorney generals of Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming have written letters to OSHA stating that such a vaccine mandate does not meet the “grave danger” threshold needed to justify such an Emergency Temporary Standard. An additional two states, Texas and Arkansas, have taken steps to avoid a potential OSHA vaccination rule. Numerous challenges have been filed in federal court.

    The cases challenging the new OSHA rules will be consolidated for one federal appeals court to rule on. Ultimately, the Supreme Court may step in.

    Student Workers at Private University Seek Union Formation and Bargaining Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act

    Recently, a student worker organizing committee at Kenyon College filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to represent 600 student employees at the Ohio college. The committee is asking the NLRB to conduct a union representation election for the proposed student worker bargaining unit. The current NLRB has apparently abandoned its position to limit union organizing among student workers at private colleges and universities over which the NLRB has jurisdiction.

    In March 2021, the then Republican-controlled NLRB abandoned a proposal to block student workers at private colleges and universities form organizing. The NLRB’s current Biden administration appointed general counsel has since publicly backed expanding labor rights for student workers.

    Sex Harassment Case for Employee Perceived as Gay Is Headed to Trial Based on Alleged Physical Attacks and Discrimination for Failure to Conform to Sexual Stereotypes

    A heterosexual employee who was mistakenly perceived as gay and harassed by a supervisor because of the misperception received the right to proceed to a trial over his sex harassment claim. The trial court cited the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and following decisions which have interpreted Title VII to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or failure to conform to sexual stereotypes (Roberts v. Glenn Industrial Group ( 2021 BL 404870. W.D.N.C. No.3:17- cv-00747, 10/21/21)).

    The plaintiff complained and the court agreed that the alleged harassment — if proven — was severe and pervasive and included physical assault by his supervisor in which his safety glasses were knocked off and he was put in a choke hold by his supervisor.



    Source link

  • House Passes Bills to Protect Older Job Applicants and Strengthen Domestic Violence Prevention and Survivor Support Services – CUPA-HR

    House Passes Bills to Protect Older Job Applicants and Strengthen Domestic Violence Prevention and Survivor Support Services – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 9, 2021

    On October 26 and November 4, 2021, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021, and H.R. 3992, the Protect Older Job Applicants (POJA) Act of 2021, respectively. Both bills passed by a close bipartisan vote — the former by a vote of 228-200 and the latter 224-200 — and are supported by President Biden.

    POJA Act

    As originally written, the POJA Act amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to extend the prohibition of limiting, segregating or classifying by employers of employees to job applicants. The bill comes after recent rulings in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals that allow employers to use facially neutral hiring practices, which some have accused of being discriminatory against older workers. As such, the POJA Act amends the ADEA to make clear that the disparate impact provision in the original statute protects older “applicants for employment” in addition to those already employed.

    Before the final vote on the bill, the House also adopted an amendment to the POJA Act that would require the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to conduct a study on the number of job applicants impacted by age discrimination in the job application process and issue recommendations on addressing age discrimination in the job application process.

    Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act

    The Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act amends the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to reauthorize and increase funding for programs focused on preventing family and domestic violence and protecting survivors. One provision addressing higher education authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to now include institutions of higher education among the entities eligible for departmental grants to “conduct domestic violence, dating violence and family violence research or evaluation.”

    Both the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act and the POJA Act now face the Senate where passage is uncertain as both require significant support from Republicans to bypass the sixty-vote filibuster threshold.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any actions or votes taken by the Senate on these bills.



    Source link