Category: NLRB

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 9, 2022

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

    U.S. Supreme Court to Review Harvard and UNC Affirmative Action Admission Policies In Consolidated Case 

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear and review two cases challenging the affirmative action admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The Supreme Court will hear an hour of argument over both court of appeals decisions, which have concluded that the respective affirmative action plans were legal. In the past, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that college and university admission related affirmative action plans were legal since 1978 in the Bakke decision.

    The composition of the Supreme Court has changed significantly since the last time it ruled that affirmative action in college admissions was legal in 2018 in the University of Texas at Austin case. The argument will be heard in the October 2022 term with a decision likely to be made in 2023. CUPA-HR will follow and report on future developments.

    Court of Appeals Allows a Former Teaching Assistant’s Complaint Alleging Male Bias In Title IX Investigation to Proceed 

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Arizona) ruled that a former Chinese national teaching assistant — who lost his job and student visa to stay in the U.S. after a Title IX investigation found that he was in violation of the school’s dating guidelines — can proceed with his own Title IX suit against the university, alleging that the investigation was biased against him as a male (Doe v. University of California (9th Cir. No. 20-55831. 1/11/22)). The plaintiff, who had prevailed in a state court proceeding challenging the disciplinary decision, nonetheless lost his housing, job, student visa and the ability to complete his doctorate.

    The plaintiff had broken off his engagement to a student who he was dating after learning she had been unfaithful to him. She came unannounced to his office, confronted him and blocked his exit when he said he had to leave to teach a class. The plaintiff eventually got around the student to leave, but the student called the campus police claiming that he pushed her and grabbed her arm, and she filed a Title IX complaint. During the investigation, an investigator told the plaintiff, “No female had ever fabricated allegations against a former boyfriend in a Title IX setting.” The plaintiff also alleged that during the two-year time period, the overwhelming majority of Title IX claims were against males and that no female was ever given a two-year suspension in circumstances like his. The court of appeals concluded that given these facts, the plaintiff’s claims should proceed to trial.

    NLRB General Counsel Reiterates Call for NLRB to Issue Make-Whole Remedies, Including Emotional Distress Damages for Employer Unfair Labor Practice Violations

    Jennifer Abruzzo, the Biden administration appointee as general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), has reiterated her request that the NLRB expand its remedy policies for employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act’s unfair labor practice provisions, including discrimination against union members, to include “make-whole” remedies, which would include emotional distress damages. The general counsel announced her initial request in September 2021. Abruzzo followed up the September 2021 request in a legal brief filed with the NLRB on January 10, 2022 arguing that the NLRB remedies are “feeble” and allow employer’s to violate the Act because it is cheaper do so without facing the consequence of make-whole remedies.

    Current NLRB remedies are limited to employment reinstatement, back pay awards and posting of notices that the employer violated the Act. Business groups filed a brief on January 10, 2022, which also opposes the general counsel’s request, arguing that the NLRB lacks authority under the Act to impose make-whole remedies. CUPA-HR will follow this litigation and report the result in a future blog post.

    U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Football Coach’s First Amendment Claim of Protected Mid-Field Prayer Denied By the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

    The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari (cert) and will hear an appeal of a Washington state football coach whose claim to a First Amendment right to kneel and pray at the 50-yard line after each game was denied by the Ninth Circuit (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Montana and Idaho) (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (U.S. No. 21-418, cert granted 1/14/22)). The Bremerton School District suspended the coach after he refused to cease his weekly ritual of kneeling and praying at the 50-yard line after each game. The Ninth Circuit denied the First Amendment claim, holding that the coach’s public statements about his prayer activities belied his argument that is was a private religious act and evidenced his attempts to proselytize his religious beliefs. As such, allowing it to continue would violate the school district’s/government’s duty not to support any particular religion.

    The coach argued that the decision, if left standing, would virtually transform speech of a public employee into government speech, lacking any First Amendment protection. The school district argued against cert, claiming that it had given the coach an accommodation to pray before or after the game in the press box or anywhere else where he would not be surrounded by his team. The coach insisted on being able to pray at mid-field before the team and spectators had cleared the field. CUPA-HR will follow this case and report on the ultimate decision.

    COVID-19 Spousal Death May Be a Way Around Workers’ Compensation Defense to Employer Liability for Some COVID-19 Cases Contracted at Work 

    A California appellate court recently refused to dismiss a case filed by an employee who claimed her husband contracted and died of COVID-19, which she contracted from working on the employer’s assembly line (See’s Candies, Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. County (2021 BL 485084, Cal. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. No. B312241,12/21/21)). The appeals court rejected the company’s argument that the husband’s death was a “derivative” injury of the employee’s injury/illness contracted at work and therefore barred by the workers’ compensation prohibition of individual lawsuits. This is a new area of the law and the cases popping up elsewhere may come to a different result. CUPA-HR will follow the issue as case law develops.

    U.S. Union Membership Among American Workers Declines to Record Low in 2021

    The percentage of American workers who are union members declined to 10.3 percent in 2021 to match its record low percentage of 2019. While union membership increased in 2020, the percentage dropped 0.5 percent in 2021 to the 2019 percentage according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2021, the number of union members declined to 14 million while the number of overall workers increased. The percentage of American workers who are union members has declined significantly since 1984 when approximately 20 percent of the U. S. workforce was unionized.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 12, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 15, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | 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

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 20, 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.

    Several States Consider Legislation Aimed at Softening Federal Workplace Vaccine Mandates

    The Arkansas legislature recently passed legislation which would soften the federal employer workplace vaccine mandate. The legislation would allow workers in Arkansas to opt out of the mandate if they show a negative COVID-19 test weekly or present a positive antibody test twice a year. The legislation would bar employers from terminating employees who followed the testing protocol. Ohio and Texas are considering similar legislation. Montana enacted a statute that prohibits employer mandates of shots that are under emergency use authorization and have not cleared final approval.

    State laws which directly conflict with federal statutes are arguably preempted and unenforceable under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Depending on how the state statute is worded there are gray areas which will be subject to litigation. For example, a state could argue that an employer may well be able to adhere to the state statute and the final Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule depending on how that final rule is written.

    NLRB General Counsel States That Political and Social Justice Advocacy in Black Lives Matter Demonstrations and Demonstrations Opposing Crackdowns on Undocumented Workers are Protected Concerted Activity Under the National Labor Relations Act 

    National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) general counsel stated in a webinar hosted by Cornell University on Wednesday, October 7, that Black Lives Matter protests and demonstrations against crackdowns on undocumented workers are protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as protected concerted activity. The general counsel referred to the case the NLRB brought against Home Depot in Minneapolis because it disciplined workers who refused to cease displaying political messages on their aprons at work,  including an employee who was terminated for displaying a “BLM” slogan. The NLRB in that case also accused Home Depot of unlawfully threatening employees with unspecified consequences if they engaged in group activities regarding racial harassment.

    Home Depot has denied any violation of the NLRA and in a statement said it does not tolerate workplace harassment, takes these matters seriously, and is committed to diversity and respect. Home Depot takes the position it has every right to refuse to allow its employees to engage in conduct which will spark conflict and possibly confuse customers. It added it has a right to refrain from allowing its employees to engage in speech in this way while serving customers.

    NLRB General Counsel Asserts That College Athletes are Employees Under the NLRA and Should be Accorded the Right to Unionize and Collectively Bargain

    The top lawyer and general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Jennifer Abruzzo, asserted in a public memo issued on September 27 that college athletes are employees and should be afforded the right to engage in protected concerted activities, including the right to unionize and collectively bargain. Abruzzo has the authority to bring a test case before the five-member NLRB who have exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether or not college athletes are employees and whether they have a right to unionize and participate in concerted activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB does not have jurisdiction of public colleges and universities, only private colleges and universities. However, Abruzzo may attempt to assert jurisdiction over public college athletes under the theory that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which is private, is a joint employer of public college athletes and can negotiate certain minimum guarantees under a collective bargaining agreement. This is an untested legal theory.

    The issue has been under increasing debate, most recently as a result of a Supreme Court decision criticizing the stance of the NCAA in limiting student compensation of athletes on antitrust grounds in NCAA v. Alston. The Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether student athletes are employees under the NLRA. Adding to the controversy is that it is not unusual for a college football coach to earn in excess of $1 million per year.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor developments in this area.

    Several Colleges File an Appeal of a Federal Court Decision to Allow Student-Athletes to Proceed to Trial Over Whether They are Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Therefore are Due Minimum Wage and Overtime Payments

    A federal district court trial judge recently ruled that student-athletes are employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and are therefore entitled to minimum wages and overtime payments. The judge used the same multi-factor approach used in cases where unpaid interns have been successfully sued and were entitled to pursue a claim of minimum wages and overtime payments (Johnson v. NCAA (E.D. Pa. No. 19-cv-19350, 9/29/21)).

    A group of institutions including Cornell, Fordham, Villanova, Layfette College and Sacred Heart University has asked the eastern district of Pennsylvania judge to allow an immediate appeal to the U.S. court of appeals for the third circuit. They want to ask the third circuit to decide: (1) Are student-athletes ever employees of the schools for which they compete?; and (2) If so, under what circumstances are student-athletes considered employees of their schools?

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor developments in this case.



    Source link

  • NLRB General Counsel Releases Memo on Employee Status for Student Athletes – CUPA-HR

    NLRB General Counsel Releases Memo on Employee Status for Student Athletes – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 29, 2021

    On September 29, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo released a memorandum stating her position that student athletes (or “Players at Academic Institutions,” as she refers to them in the memo) are employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are afforded all statutory protections as prescribed under the law. Abruzzo declares, “The broad language of Section 2(3) of the [NLRA], the policies underlying the NLRA, Board law, and the common law fully support the conclusion that certain Players at Academic Institutions are statutory employees, who have the right to act collectively to improve their terms and conditions of employment.”

    Abruzzo also states that misclassifying such individuals as non-employees and leading them to believe they are not afforded protections under the NLRA has a “chilling effect” on Section 7 activity. She said she would consider this misclassification an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. Abruzzo further stated that the intent of the memo is to “educate the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences, and the NCAA” about her position in future appropriate cases.

    The memo revives issues surrounding employment status of student athletes that the NLRB has previously ruled on. In March 2014, the NLRB’s Regional Director in Chicago ruled that Northwestern players receiving football scholarships are employees and have a right to organize under the NLRA. In August 2015, the NLRB released a unanimous decision dismissing the representation petition filed by a group of Northwestern football players seeking to unionize. In doing so, however, the board’s decision did not definitively resolve the issue of whether college athletes are employees and have a protected right to unionize under the NLRA. After considering arguments of both parties in the case and various amici, including CUPA-HR, the board declined to assert jurisdiction on the issue, stating that “asserting jurisdiction would not promote labor stability [because the] Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities, which constitute” the vast majority of the teams. The board noted, however, its “decision is narrowly focused to apply only to the players in this case and does not preclude reconsideration of this issue in the future.” Another issue in the Northwestern decision was the board’s lack of jurisdiction over “walk-on” players who do not receive scholarships. It remains to be seen how Abruzzo will overcome in future cases the two jurisdictional obstacles identified in Northwestern.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of NLRB actions and cases that may prompt the agency to rule on the issue regarding student athlete employment status.



    Source link