Category: Higher Ed News

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

    HR and the Courts — August 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 14, 2024

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

    Student-Athletes and NCAA Propose a $2.8 Billion Settlement in Antitrust and Name, Image and Likeness Case

    Attorneys representing student-athletes have filed for court approval of a $2.8 billion settlement reached with the NCAA and the Power Five conferences. Bloomberg reports that the student-athletes were pursuing a $4.5 billion claim.

    Under the proposed settlement, a men’s football or basketball player would receive roughly $135,000 and a female basketball player would receive roughly $35,000. Athletes in other Division I sports, including football and basketball players in non-Power Five conferences, would also recover under the proposed settlement, although the terms of that recovery are not yet clear.

    Also under the proposed settlement, Division I schools will be able to provide student-athletes with direct payment up to a cap of 22% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenue per year. The payment pool will be more than $20 million per school in the 2025-26 academic year and will grow from there. The Power Five includes the Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Southeastern Conference and Pac-12. (The Pac-12 lost its autonomy status for 2024-25 after 10 of 12 of its members departed for other conferences.) The proposed settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-03919, 7/26/24)).

    It is reported that the multibillion-dollar settlement would be paid out over 10 years. A preliminary approval hearing will take place in September to be followed by a comment period from class members. If approval is reached it will spare the NCAA and the Power Five from a trial scheduled to take place in January, 2025.

    Employee Status of Student-Athletes Under the FLSA Still Undecided as Court Rejects NCAA’s Appeal

    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands) rejected the appeal of the NCAA contesting the trial court decision that college athletes are entitled to a trial to decide whether they are employees under the FLSA.

    The appeals court remanded the case back to the trial judge for more analysis on the applicable standard to be used in determining whether a student-athlete is an employee. The decision allows the college athletes to continue to pursue their claims, which allege that the NCAA and colleges are joint employers (Johnson V. NCAA (3rd Cir. No. 22-01223, 7/11/24)).

    The decision contrasts with the former holdings of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 9th Circuit, which rejected claims that student-athletes were employees. In remanding the case back for further analysis, the 3rd Circuit left room for the court to hold that some college athletes maintain their amateur, non-employee status while others are employees subject to the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA.

    The decision also rejected the term “student-athlete,” commenting that the term is an “NCAA marketing invention” designed to “conjure up the nobility of amateurism,” assert “the precedence of scholarship over athletics,” and “obfuscate the nature of the legal relationship at the heart of a growing commercial enterprise.” The decision stated that college athletes “cannot be barred as a matter of law from asserting FLSA claims simply by virtue of the revered tradition of amateurism.” Finally, the court remanded the case to the trial judge to use common-law factors, such as level of control and presence of payments, to determine the employee status of college athletes.

    Unionization Petitions Filed With NLRB Increase by 30% in 2024 — Decertification Petitions Increase by 12%

    Petitions filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to both certify and decertify union representation are up dramatically so far this year.

    The increase in certification petitions is partially attributed to the NLRB’s decision in the Cemex decision. That decision requires employers, in response to a certification petition, to either voluntarily recognize the union or file an RM, which is used by employers to dispute that the union has majority status. The increase in activity also comes after the NLRB altered its administrative procedures to shorten the time between petition filing and the election.

    The NLRB also reports that its regional offices have conducted more representation elections so far in 2024 than in the entire 2023 fiscal year. Finally, the NLRB reports that unions have won 79% of union-filed petitions and 70% of employer-filed petitions.

    EEOC Signals Second Attempt to Require Employers to Report Pay Data by Race, Sex and Job Category

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has indicated in its July regulatory playbook that it intends to make another attempt to require that employers annually report pay data by race, sex and job category. Its first attempt to do so was canceled by court intervention in 2016 during the Obama administration.

    The EEOC indicated it will use the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as opposed to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to issue the new regulations. Under the APA, advance notice, including a comment period, is required. Also under the APA, an individual or organization has the private right of action to block the regulation.

    The recent Supreme Court decision in the Chevron case may make such APA challenges easier to manage for employers and employer organizations seeking to challenge the new attempt to collect pay data. In the Chevron case, the Supreme Court abandoned the rule of the presumption of legitimacy of federal agency decisions.

    Court Concludes NLRB Failed to Explain Why It Rejected Employer Objections in Union Election  

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the NLRB failed to coherently explain its rejection of employer election objections when the NLRB certified a union in a one-vote victory in a mail ballot election.

    The D.C. Circuit court concluded that the NLRB used different legal tests without explanation when it rejected an employer’s objections to the mail ballot election (GHG Mgmt LLC V. NLRB (DC Cir. No, 22-01312, 7/9/24)).

    The court ruled in a unanimous, three-judge decision that the NLRB failed to adequately explain its rejection of employer objections and remanded the case back to the NLRB for determination over which test it used to reject the employer’s objections. The court stated it can only rule on whether the NLRB’s decision was correct if it knows which test the NLRB used in coming to its decision. This case is another criticism of the NLRB’s handling of mail-in ballot elections used during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Federal Judge Temporarily Rejects Texas AG’s Attempt to Block EEOC Guidance on LGBTQ+ Employees

    A federal district trial judge has temporarily rejected the Texas attorney general’s attempt to block current EEOC guidance that covers LGBTQ+ employees. The guidance protects employees’ right to choose pronouns and bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.

    The federal judge dismissed the case, holding that the Texas attorney general must file a new case and not rely on the past decision in which the federal judge vacated similar EEOC regulations protecting LGBTQ+ employees (State of Texas V. EEOC (N.D. Tex. No. 2-21-cv-00194, 7/17/24)).

    The judge ruled that his prior decision in favor of the Texas attorney general vacating prior EEOC LGBTQ+ regulations can be used as a predicate for a new case. Nonetheless, the Texas attorney general must file a new case seeking new injunctive relief. The federal judge explained that his prior decision addressed the EEOC’s 2021 guidance alone and a new case must be filed to adjudicate the issues involved in the new EEOC guidance.



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Memo Outlining Higher Ed Institutions’ Disclosure Obligations under NLRA and FERPA – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Memo Outlining Higher Ed Institutions’ Disclosure Obligations under NLRA and FERPA – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 7, 2024

    On August 6, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo, “Clarifying Universities’ and Colleges’ Disclosure Obligations under the National Labor Relations Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.” The memo was issued to all NLRB regional offices and is meant to provide guidance to institutions of higher education clarifying their obligations “in cases involving the duty to furnish information where both statutes may be implicated.”

    The memorandum outlines how institutions can comply with requests by unions representing their student workers for information that may be covered under FERPA, the federal law that protects students’ privacy in relation to their education records and applies to institutions that receive federal education funds. Under the NLRA, employers are required to provide certain information to unions that may be relevant to their representational and collective bargaining obligations, but this requirement can come into conflict with institutions’ obligations under FERPA.

    In situations where the employer believes certain records requested by the union may be confidential and covered under FERPA, the memo outlines the steps institutions must take to comply with their disclosure obligations.

    1. “The institution must determine whether the request seeks education records or personally identifiable information contained therein.”

    Institutions must be prepared to “explain why and substantiate with documentary evidence, if available, that the student-employee is employed as a result of their status as a student to the union,” as opposed to a traditional employee whose records are not protected by FERPA. The memo specifies that, if the union’s request includes some documents not covered by FERPA, the employer must provide those documents to the union “without delay, even if FERPA applies to other parts of the request.”

    1. “If a request seeks information protected by FERPA, the institution must offer a reasonable accommodation in a timely manner and bargain in good faith with the union toward a resolution of the matter.”

    The memo puts the burden to offer an alternative on the employer. The employer cannot “simply refuse to furnish the requested information,” but it must offer a “reasonable accommodation and bargain in good faith toward an agreement that addresses both parties’ interests.”

    1. “If the parties reach an agreement over an accommodation, the institution must abide by that agreement and furnish the records.”

    If an agreement is not reached, the memo specifies that the union can file an unfair labor practice charge against the institution. The memo then gives the NLRB the authority to find an appropriate accommodation “in light of the parties’ bargaining proposals.”

    Abruzzo also provided a “FERPA consent template” that she advocates institutions provide to student-employees during the onboarding process. The template, if signed by the student employee, “would permit an institution covered by FERPA to disclose to a union, consistent with FERPA, any employment-related records of a student that are relevant and reasonably necessary for each stage of the representation process.” Abruzzo argues the template would help “reduce delay and obviate the need to seek students’ consent at the time a union seeks to represent employees or submits an information request to carry out its representative functions.”

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates following this guidance and other updates from the NLRB.



    Source link

  • Title IX Rule Goes Into Effect in 24 States – CUPA-HR

    Title IX Rule Goes Into Effect in 24 States – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 1, 2024

    On August 1, the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule goes into effect, implementing new requirements for compliance with Title IX for institutions of higher education. However, ongoing legal challenges have blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states, as well as at certain institutions in states that have not sued the Department of Education (ED).

    Background

    On April 19, ED released the text of the highly anticipated Title IX final rule. The final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions, and it implements new training requirements for employees and grievance procedures for handling reported cases of sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment. To provide members with an overview of the final rule, CUPA-HR held a webinar in April, which was recorded and can be accessed for free.

    Lawsuits

    Shortly after the rule was published, over 20 Republican-led states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the final rule. The lawsuits sought to block ED from implementing and enforcing the final rule, though most of them homed in on concerns with expanding Title IX protections to transgender individuals through the expanded protections against discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity.

    From mid-June through the end of July, federal judges across the country granted preliminary injunctions to the states and advocacy groups challenging the rule, meaning the Department of Education is blocked from enforcing the new Title IX rule on the August 1 effective date. All 26 states that sued ED for the Title IX rule were ultimately granted injunctive relief. Additionally, a decision from the U.S. District Court of Kansas expanded the preliminary injunction to include schools attended by members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty. This means that ED cannot enforce the new Title IX rule at certain schools in the 24 states that didn’t challenge the rule, as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

    The Biden administration has appealed to the Supreme Court on the decisions granting the preliminary injunctions. In its emergency request, the administration is asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunction to only block provisions related to gender identity. It argued that the lower court’s decisions to grant preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students, and it hopes that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements can go into effect. A decision from the Supreme Court on the emergency request has not yet been issued.

    Looking Ahead

    Though ED is blocked from enforcing the new Title IX rule in 26 states, litigation continues in the lower courts where decisions have been issued on whether to strike down the rule. If the rule is struck down, the Biden administration is likely to appeal the decision, though it is unknown whether a decision will be released before the election and potential change in administration. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates to the legal challenges against the Title IX final rule.

     



    Source link

  • Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 11, 2024

    On July 5, the Biden administration released the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Action (Regulatory Agenda), providing insights on regulatory and deregulatory activity under development across more than 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. The Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the first of two that will be released during the calendar year, and it sets target dates for regulatory actions in the coming months.

    CUPA-HR’s government relations team reviews each Regulatory Agenda that is released and has put together the following list of noteworthy regulations included in the current edition.

    Department of Education

    Office for Civil Rights – Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnicity in Response to EO 13899 on Combating Anti-Semitism and EO 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is targeting December 2024 for the release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OCR’s enforcement responsibilities for cases involving discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR is issuing this NPRM in response to a 2019 Trump Executive Order (EO) and a 2021 Biden EO.

    The NPRM has become a higher priority for OCR, given the recent political activity on campus related to the war in Gaza and related scrutiny from Congressional Republicans of higher education’s response to protests on campus. In the Regulatory Agenda announcement, OCR explains the need for this rulemaking by stating that they have “received complaints of harassment and assaults directed at Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other students based on their shared ancestry or ethnicity.”

    Office for Civil Rights – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Biden administration has pushed its final rule on transgender students’ participation in athletic programs to its “long-term actions,” with an undetermined date for when the final rule will be published. In the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda, the final rule was previously targeted for March 2024.

    OCR released an NPRM on this topic in April 2023. Under the NPRM, schools that receive federal funding would not be permitted to adopt or apply a one-size-fits-all ban on transgender students participating on teams consistent with their gender identity. Instead, the proposal allows schools the flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serves important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The department further explained that the eligibility criteria must take into account the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level of students participating, and the criteria would have to minimize harm to students whose opportunity to participate on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

    The move to push the final rule to “long-term actions” with an undetermined publication date is likely a result of recent challenges to the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule and the upcoming election. Shortly after the Title IX rule was published, over two dozen states joined lawsuits challenging the regulations, with many citing the inclusion of protections for gender identity and sexual orientation as top concerns with the final rule. Since then, the Title IX final rule has been blocked from going into effect on August 1 in 14 states.

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

    Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

    In December 2024, the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) anticipate releasing a final rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) on pay equity and transparency in federal contracting.

    The joint agencies published a pay equity and transparency NPRM in January 2024. In the NPRM, the agencies propose to amend the FAR to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”), and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose on job announcements the compensation to be offered (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    As part of its justification for publishing the NPRM, the proposal noted that 21 states, 22 localities, and Washington, D.C., have put bans into place that prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary, and 10 states have pay transparency laws in place, with several other states working toward implementing such laws.

    Department of Homeland Security

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) anticipates releasing at least one more final rule to modernize the H-1B and F-1 visa programs in December 2024.

    In October 2023, USCIS issued an NPRM to simplify the application process for H-1B visas, increase the program’s efficiency, and strengthen the program’s integrity measures. In February 2024, USCIS issued a final rule to implement a new beneficiary-centric selection process for H-1B registrations, but it did not finalize all of the provisions that were originally included in the NPRM. When publishing the February 2024 final rule, DHS indicated that it planned to publish a separate final rule to address the remaining aspects from October’s proposed rule. The separate final action listed in the Spring Regulatory Agenda will likely be the remainder of the provisions from the NPRM.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates to these regulations and additional policies as they are introduced.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — July 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 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.

    University of California and UAW Agree to End Grad Student Strike

    The rolling strike of University of California graduate students at several campuses, protesting the university’s handling of Israel-Hamas war protests is formally over as a result of the university and union agreement to extend the injunction granted by a California state court at the university’s request. The university successfully argued that the rolling strike violated the collective bargaining agreement’s no-strike provision. The UAW represents 38,000 grad students at several University of California campuses.

    UC student workers walked off their jobs at six campuses in May and continued a rolling strike until the court enjoined the strike activity. The university breach-of-contract litigation continues, as there remain issues to be decided by the court as to the breadth of the no-strike provisions and the university’s claim for damages resulting from the breach of the no-strike provisions.

    University Prevails in Title IX Lawsuit Alleging Student Sex Harassment at a Private Party Off Campus

    A federal judge recent ruled that a plaintiff student failed to provide evidence that the university had substantial control over the context in which the assault or sex harassment occurred to make the university liable under Title IX. The judge concluded that even though the university had control over the alleged harasser because of an alleged student code violation, this was not enough to substantiate jurisdiction under Title IX (Roe V. Marshall University Board of Governors (2024 BL 215044, S.D. W. Va. No. 3:22-cv-00532, 6/24/24)).

    When the harassment occurs off campus, the judge ruled that the court must find some nexus between the “out of school conduct and the school.” The court concluded that the incident in question took place at a private party at a private residence and the party was not sanctioned, hosted or sponsored by the university or an entity affiliated with the university. Moreover, permission for the party was not sought from the university, and the university was unaware of the party until it was over.

    The university’s Title IX office determined, four days after the incident, that the matter should be handled by the university’s Office of Student Conduct, which the judge concluded was consistent with Title IX regulations at the time. The student conduct office immediately issued an no-contact order between the student and the alleged harasser and conducted a six-week investigation.

    The male student (alleged harasser) was ultimately placed on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program, do 20 hours of community service, and accept responsibility for violation of the student code. The plaintiff (alleged victim) was also put on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program and complete 10 hours of community service, after admitting to underage drinking. In dismissing the case against the university, the judge also concluded that the male student (alleged harasser) also faced possible independent criminal penalties.

    Two Conservative Groups Are Bringing Court Challenges to Large Employers’ Workplace DEI Programs

    America First Legal, led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed at least 15 lawsuits alleging that employer DEI programs are illegal under Title VII and has sent more than 30 letters asking the EEOC to probe employer DEI programs at large employers, including Morgan Stanley and IBM Corp. Academic institutions could be their next target.

    The second organization, American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by conservative activist Edward Blum, has claimed that these DEI programs violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which affirms that all citizens are equally protected by the law. The organization has used the 1866 statute in challenging DEI programs at law firms, including Winston and Strawn, Morrison Foerster, and Perkins Coe. The 1866 statute is broader than Title VII. Plaintiffs suing under the 1866 statute avoid the Title VII damage cap and the requirement that a charge be filed with the EEOC before filing suit.

    Transgender Woman Reaches Settlement of Claim That She Was Wrongly Denied Medical Coverage

    A transgender woman plaintiff sued her employer’s group insurance plan, alleging that she was wrongly denied medical coverage for facial hair removal, which she claimed is an extremely important part of gender-affirming care. The plaintiff alleged that the care is deemed medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The lawsuit claimed that the denial, based on the conclusion that the surgery was cosmetic and unnecessary, was inconsistent with the evidence presented that the treatment was medically necessary (Cox V. WSP USA Inc. Group Insurance Plan (N.D. Cal. No. 3-24-cv-01312, 6/6/24)).

    The plaintiff sought $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses plus $20,000 for future services. The case was dismissed after the parties stipulated to the judge that they had reached an undisclosed settlement.

    Supreme Court Raises the Bar for the NLRB to Obtain an Adverse Injunction Against an Employer for Unfair Labor Practices

    The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts should give no more weight to an NLRB request for injunctive relief against employers allegedly violating the NLRA unfair labor practice provisions than it would give other litigants in injunction cases (Starbucks Corp, V. McKinney (U.S. No. 23-367, 6/13/24)). The Supreme Court essentially held that a defending employer is entitled to discovery over the NLRB’s alleged evidence before the court can issue an injunction. In the past, the NLRB has been able to maintain secrecy over this information when seeking extraordinary relief (e.g. an injunction requiring reinstatement of employees allegedly terminated for supporting a union).

    Supreme Court to Determine Employer Burden of Proof to Obtain an Exemption From FLSA Minimum Wage and Overtime Provisions

    The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to resolve the split in appellate courts on the precise evidentiary burden applicable to employers attempting to justify an exemption to the application of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. Right now the circuits are split over whether an employer must prove an exemption by “clear and convincing evidence” rather than the lesser standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” The Supreme Court will resolve this split and decide which standard is applicable to employers going forward (E.M.D. Sales Inc. V. Carrera (U.S. No. 23-217, petition granted 6/17/24)).

    The issue involves whether the defendant firm’s sales personnel fall inside the “outside sales exemption.”  The company lost the case at trial, where the federal court held that it did not meet the “clear and convincing” standard, while numerous other appellate courts have applied the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard.



    Source link

  • Overtime Rule Blocked for Public Institutions in Texas; House Advances Legislation Aiming to Block Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Overtime Rule Blocked for Public Institutions in Texas; House Advances Legislation Aiming to Block Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 1, 2024

    Update: On November 8, the federal judge from the Eastern District of Texas is set to hold a hearing on summary judgement in the business community’s challenge to DOL’s overtime final rule. While it is unknown how soon after we could get a decision on the validity of the rule, the judge could rule from the bench or quickly after the hearing. CUPA-HR will send out updates on the rulings as soon as we know.

    On June 28, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas Court granted a narrowly scoped preliminary injunction for the overtime rule in the state of Texas, blocking the Department of Labor’s overtime final rule from taking effect on July 1, 2024. The judge only blocked enforcement for employees of the state of Texas (i.e., public institutions), so private institutions in Texas and all other institutions outside of Texas will still need to comply with the overtime rule beginning July 1, 2024.

    The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed by the state of Texas alongside a lawsuit challenging the validity of the final rule in its entirety. At least two other lawsuits are currently pending before the Eastern District Court of Texas. The preliminary injunction will block the final rule from taking effect on July 1 for public employers and employees in Texas until a later decision is issued on the lawsuits challenging the validity of the final rule.

    As a reminder, the final rule implemented a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations. The first increase was expected to take effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year). The second increase is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, and it would increase the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year). The final rule also adopted automatic updates to the minimum salary threshold that would occur every three years.

    Given the judge’s narrow decision granting the preliminary injunction, private institutions in Texas and all institutions outside of Texas are still required to implement adjustments to comply with the July 1 minimum salary threshold until a later decision is made on the validity of the rule as a whole. CUPA-HR will be monitoring the pending cases closely.

    House Appropriations Subcommittee Bill

    On June 26, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education released their fiscal year 2025 funding legislation for the Department of Labor (DOL) and other related agencies, which included a provision to prohibit any funding provided to DOL under the bill from administering, implementing or enforcing the overtime final rule. The Subcommittee passed the legislation out of Committee during a markup on June 27. It will now be sent to the floor for a vote, where House Republicans have a slim majority and could pass the bill along partisan lines. The fate of the overtime provision appears uncertain in the Senate, however, as the Democrat-controlled chamber is unlikely to include such language in their appropriations bill. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of any updates on the status of the overtime final rule.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Welcomes a New Board of Directors for 2024-25 – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Welcomes a New Board of Directors for 2024-25 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 26, 2024

    As we prepare for a new year at CUPA-HR, we want to take a moment to introduce our board of directors for 2024-25 and to thank those who have served on the board over the past year. The board, which guides the association’s strategic priorities, is an incredible team of higher ed HR leaders who are dedicated to supporting and advancing the higher ed HR profession.

    2024-25 Board Members

    The chair of CUPA-HR’s board of directors for 2024-25 is Robyn Salvo, associate vice president for human resources at Monmouth University. Robyn has worked in HR for over 20 years, with the last 18 in higher ed at Monmouth University. In her current role, she leads an HR team in providing advice and guidance to the university covering all aspects of human resources, from talent management and compensation to benefits and compliance. Robyn has been a member of the CUPA-HR national board since 2020 and previously served as president of the CUPA-HR New Jersey Chapter.

    Also serving on this year’s board are:

    Executive Committee Members

    • Amanda Bailey, Chair-elect – Vice President for Human Resources at Boston University
    • Jami Painter, Past Chair – Senior Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Illinois System
    • Kelli Shuman, Treasurer – Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Chief Human Resources Officer at Elon University
    • Andy Brantley, Ex-Officio – President and Chief Executive Officer at CUPA-HR

    Regional Directors

    • Melanie DeSantis, Eastern Region – Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Chief Human Resources Officer at Franklin & Marshall College
    • Connie Putland, Midwest Region – Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
    • Ale Kennedy, Southern Region – Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Chief Human Resources Officer at Clemson University
    • Clarity White, Western Region – Human Resources Supervisor at the University of California, Berkeley

    At-Large Directors

    • Jazzmine N. Clarke-Glover – Vice President of Workplace Culture and Inclusion (Chief Human Resources Officer, Chief Diversity Officer, Title IX Coordinator) at Wagner College
    • Christine Lovely – Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at Cornell University
    • Josh Mackey – Vice President of Human Resources at Northern Arizona University
    • Helena A. Rodrigues – Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Arizona
    • Eugene Whitlock – Chief People and Culture Officer and Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources at the University of California, Berkeley
    • Lynne Adams – Chief Human Resources Officer and Associate Vice President, Human Resources at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
    • Maureen Binder – Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Central Florida
    • Clint Eury – Program Director, Human Resources Strategic Partnerships and Communications at the University of Maryland, College Park
    • David Zajchowski – Human Resources Director at Rollins College

    Thank you!

    We also want to celebrate the outstanding leaders who are rolling off the board. They have invested countless hours of their time and energy in leading our profession and our association, and we are so grateful for their wisdom and guidance.

    • Jay Stephens, Past Chair – Vice President of People and Culture at the University of Montana
    • Kristi Yowell – Chief People and Culture Officer and Associate Vice President for Human Resources at Loyola University Maryland
    • Heather Hart – Vice Chancellor of Human Resources and Strategic Operations at Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana-Lafayette
    • El pagnier Kay (EK) Hudson – Senior Vice President, Human Resources at Florida International University

    We couldn’t accomplish our mission without our leaders. Thank you for your dedication and commitment!

    CUPA-HR’s 2023-24 Board of Directors



    Source link

  • As Effective Date for Biden FLSA Overtime Rule Nears, Opposition Mounts – CUPA-HR

    As Effective Date for Biden FLSA Overtime Rule Nears, Opposition Mounts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 18, 2024

    On July 1, the first phase of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)’s new overtime rule goes into effect. The initial phase of the rule will require employers to pay most white-collar employees a salary of at least $43,888. If employers fail to do so, those employees will be entitled to overtime pay under federal law. As the rule’s effective date approaches, opposition has mounted, with plaintiffs filing three lawsuits challenging the rule, including one filed by the state of Texas requesting that the court delay the July 1 effective date. Additionally, several Republican members of the U.S. House and Senate have introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution aimed at blocking the rule.

    Background

    On April 23, 2024, DOL issued a final rule to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. The FLSA requires employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage (currently $7.25) for each hour worked and 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked over 40 in one week. However, the FLSA contains various exemptions to these overtime pay requirements, including one for white-collar employees. White-collar employees are considered “exempt” if they satisfy a three-part test: (1) the employee must be paid on a salary basis (that is, paid the same amount each week regardless of hours worked), (2) the employee’s salary must meet a minimum threshold (currently $35,568) established by DOL, and (3) the employee’s primary duties must be consistent with being an executive, administrative or professional employee. The final rule will increase the minimum salary threshold from $35,568 to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. Thereafter, the rule requires automatic increases to the threshold every three years based on a set formula.

    Lawsuits

    On May 23, a group of 13 local and national associations and Texas businesses filed the first lawsuit in federal court in Texas challenging DOL’s rule. The suit claims that the salary threshold that goes into effect on January 1, 2025, is so high it will result in more than 4 million individuals being denied exempt status, even though these individuals could be reasonably classified as exempt based on their duties, and in doing so, the rule violates both the statutory language of the FLSA and prior court decisions. The suit also challenges the automatic updates.

    On June 3, two additional lawsuits challenging the overtime final rule were filed by a software company in Texas, as well as the state of Texas itself. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs make arguments similar to those in the lawsuit filed in May, stating that DOL lacks authority to implement the changes provided in the final rule. The state of Texas also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that seeks to block the final rule from going into effect on July 1.

    While it may take the courts several months to issue decisions on the validity of the rule, the judge could decide whether to grant the state of Texas’s motion for a TRO before the July 1 effective date. The TRO would block the rule from going into effect until the court decides whether or not the rule is valid. More updates will be provided via CUPA-HR Washington Insider Alert emails as decisions are released.

    Congressional Review Act Resolution

    On June 3, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) introduced CRA resolutions in the House and Senate to block the overtime final rule from going into effect. Unlike traditional legislation, CRAs require only a simple majority in both chambers to pass (as compared to the usual 60-vote threshold to bypass a filibuster needed in the Senate).

    Though House Republicans have the majority, it is unclear if and when the CRA will be brought to the floor for a vote, given the minimal concern with the July 1 effective date from the business community. In the Democrat-controlled Senate, the path for a floor vote seems even more uncertain as Senate Democrats do not appear to support the efforts to overturn the final rule. As such, it seems unlikely that Congress will pass the CRA to overturn the final rule this session.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor for and keep members apprised of any major updates relating to the FLSA overtime regulations.



    Source link

  • Congress Introduces Legislation on Employee Classification of Student-Athletes – CUPA-HR

    Congress Introduces Legislation on Employee Classification of Student-Athletes – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 18, 2024

    On June 13, the House Education and Workforce Committee voted to advance H.R. 8534, the Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act. The bill would prohibit student-athletes from being classified as employees under federal and state labor laws and regulations due to their participation in intercollegiate athletics.

    The bill was introduced on May 23 by Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) and 10 House Republicans. If enacted, the bill would prohibit student-athletes from being classified as employees at institutions of higher education, athletic conferences or athletic associations (such as the NCAA). In effect, the legislation would prohibit student-athletes from being classified as employees under federal labor laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as well as state laws and regulations determining employment classification.

    Throughout the Biden administration’s first term, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued significant guidance and decisions with respect to the classification of student-athletes as employees. In September 2021, the NLRB’s general counsel issued a memorandum asserting the agency’s position that student-athletes are considered employees under the NLRA. The memorandum was followed by an NLRB complaint filed against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA for allegedly misclassifying USC’s men’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees. Additionally, in March 2024, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union, after a regional NLRB director determined that players on the team are employees under the NLRA using the board’s general counsel memorandum.

    The bill passed out of committee by a partisan vote of 23-16, only gaining support from Republicans on the committee. The bill now awaits a full House vote, where Republicans can pass the bill with a simple majority. The fate of the bill is more uncertain in the Senate, as it is unlikely that it will gain enough support from Democrats to bypass the 60-vote filibuster. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates relating to this bill and employee classification of student-athletes generally.



    Source link

  • Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 17, 2024

    Updates:
    On June 17, a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky issued a second preliminary injunction against the Title IX rule, blocking the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia.

    On June 24, the Biden administration filed a notice of appeal for the preliminary injunction granted in the Western District Court of Louisiana to block the Title IX final rule from going into effect on August 1, 2024. The appeal will be filed in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The preliminary injunction remains in effect until the 5th Circuit Court issues a decision. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this appeal as well as the status of the second preliminary injunction granted in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky.

    On July 2, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Kansas issued a third preliminary injunction to block the Biden administration’s Title IX rule from taking effect on August 1. The preliminary injunction applies to four states: Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. The preliminary injunction also applies to schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty attend, even if the state in which the school is located is not challenging the rule or is not included in another preliminary injunction. The Title IX rule is now blocked from being enforced beginning on August 1 in a total of 14 states, as well as over 360 institutions in 24 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico that are not suing the Biden administration over the Title IX rule.

    On July 11, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to block the Department of Education from implementing and enforcing its Title IX final rule. The vote is largely symbolic as the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the measure and President Biden would veto the resolution if it ended up on his desk.

    On July 11, a federal judge in the Northern District Court of Texas granted a fourth preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1 in the state of Texas. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect in 15 states.

    On July 24, a federal judge from the Eastern District Court of Missouri issued another preliminary injunction to block the Title IX rule from taking effect in six more states. The states included in this decision were Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1 in a total of 21 states.

    On July 31, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Oklahoma granted a preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1. Additionally, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, overturning a lower court’s previous decision to deny the preliminary injunction in those states. There are 26 states in which the Title IX rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1.

    On June 13, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction on the Department of Education (ED)’s recent Title IX final rule. The order blocks the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho until a final decision has been issued by the judge on a lawsuit challenging the validity of the final rule.

    ED’s Final Rule and Subsequent Lawsuits

    In April, ED released its highly anticipated final rule to amend the Title IX regulations. Notably, the final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. Soon after it was published, several lawsuits were filed by states and advocacy groups challenging ED’s decision to expand Title IX protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. 

    Judge’s Order

    In the order to grant a preliminary injunction, the federal judge asserted that the Title IX rulemaking is “contrary to law” and “exceeds statutory authority,” especially with the expanded protections for transgender students. Specifically, the judge explained that Congress intended to protect biological women from discrimination when enacting Title IX, and that “enacting the changes in the final rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX.”

    As a result, ED is blocked from enforcing the final rule in the four states listed in the order, and the final rule will not take effect on August 1 in those four states until further orders are issued by the court.* The judge will now consider the lawsuit challenging the final rule and decide to either uphold or strike down the rule. A final decision may take months or a year or more to be released, as any decision is likely to be appealed to a higher court. In the meantime, CUPA-HR encourages HR leaders in the states impacted by this preliminary to work with their institution’s general counsel on best practices for navigating Title IX compliance.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the legal challenges against the Title IX final rule.

    * Over two dozen states have joined lawsuits challenging the Title IX final rule. Though the order in this blog post applies only to Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho, decisions for the additional lawsuits could result in similar injunctions for other states.



    Source link