Category: student-athletes

  • HR and the Courts — November 2024

    HR and the Courts — November 2024

    by CUPA-HR | November 13, 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.

    More Than 35,000 University of California Service Employees Vote to Strike

    The union representing over 35,000 service and patient care employees at all 10 campuses and five medical centers of the University of California reports that the membership has voted overwhelmingly to strike if collective bargaining contracts cannot be reached. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299 is the union representing the service and patient care employees. The contract covering 25,000 patient care employees expired on July 31, 2024, and the contract covering 11,000 service employees expired November 7, 2024. The union stated it would provide the university with 10 days advance notice of any strike.

    The union claims higher costs, especially for housing, has led to a major crisis for its members. The union has filed charges with the California Public Employee Relations Board alleging that the university has not shared information on UC finances as part of the bargaining process.

    University Sues NLRB, Claims Requirement to Turn Over Information Violates FERPA

    Vanderbilt University has sued the National Labor Relations Board in federal court, claiming that the agency’s requirement to turn over student information violates its obligations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The NLRB and the United Auto Workers (UAW), the union seeking to organize the unit of graduate student employees, have requested information on about 2,200 graduate student employees, including work locations, shifts, and job classifications. Vanderbilt claims that providing such information would jeopardize the university’s ability to receive federal funds due to FERPA.

    Vanderbilt is seeking an injunction requiring the NLRB to vacate the rules as applied so the university will not have to violate FERPA. Vanderbilt asserts that the NLRB’s rules are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law given the conflict with the university’s obligations under FERPA (Vanderbilt University v. NLRB (M.D. Tenn. No. 3:24-cv-01301, Comp filed, 10/29/24)). Vanderbilt has asserted more than 80 students have objected to the disclosure of the information. We will follow developments in the case as they unfold.

    Educator’s Anti-Male Bias Title IX Claim Can Go to Trial

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an educator’s Title IX claims can go to trial. The educator alleges that a New York state school district’s harassment probe, which resulted in a ruling against him, violated his Title IX rights. He was accused by a student of inappropriate conduct and touching in his mobile agricultural education trailer. The 2nd Circuit noted that the alleged perpetrator was not given timely notice of the allegations, was not told what was specifically alleged, and was denied the chance to review the evidence and present evidence of his own.

    The appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, thereby giving the alleged perpetrator the right to a trial over the claim that the Title IX investigation was flawed and biased against him as a male (Schiebel v. Schoharie Central District (2nd Cir., No. 23-01080, 11/1/24)). The appeals court also noted that only one other student was interviewed, despite other students and adults allegedly being present, and that student did not confirm the allegations of the alleged victim.

    Union Election Petitions Filed With NLRB Have Doubled Since Fiscal Year 2021

    The NLRB reports that union election petitions for the most recent fiscal year have totaled 3,286, or more than double the amount in fiscal year 2021. The number of election petitions also amounts to a 27% increase over the previous fiscal year of 2023. The NLRB reported a 7% increase in the number of unfair labor practice filings it has received since fiscal year 2023.

    The NLRB has jurisdiction over private colleges and universities. Public college and universities in most states are subject to state-based rules in conducting union election matters. Commentators generally report anecdotally that state-based union election petitions are also increasing. There have been increased reports of union organizing among higher ed student employee work groups.

    NLRB General Counsel Says New College Athlete Employment Legislation Unnecessary  

    NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo stated that there is no need for special legislation concerning student-athlete employment status, since there is existing legislation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, minimum wage laws, and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). No new laws, such as those promoted by the NCAA, are necessary, she said. Abruzzo made these remarks at a symposium hosted by Temple University in October. The general counsel pointed out that the situation under the FLSA is currently being played out in the courts.

    Court of Appeals Reverses NLRB Order for Elon Musk to Delete Tweet That Workers Will Lose Stock Options if They Unionize

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision that affirmed the NLRB’s order against Musk and Tesla. In 2021, the NLRB ordered that Musk delete a tweet saying that employees of Tesla would lose stock options if they were to unionize. The appeals court ruled 9 to 8 that the NLRB order was not enforceable. The appeals court declined to rule one way or the other whether the tweet violated the NLRA, rather holding that the NLRB’s proposed remedy was not enforceable.

    Bloomberg reported that the decision was a “blow” to the NLRB’s authority to enforce the labor law’s prohibitions on an employer’s allegedly coercive anti-union statements, particularly when they appear on social media.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — October 2024

    HR and the Courts — October 2024

    by CUPA-HR | October 15, 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.

    NCAA & Power Conferences Receive Preliminary Approval of Name, Image and Likeness and Anti-Trust Settlement — Ivies Win Dismissal of Anti-Trust Lawsuit

    A federal district court judge has given preliminary approval to the NCAA and Power Conferences’ revised $2.8 billion settlement proposal to be paid to college athletes over 10 years. The judge set a fairness hearing for April 2025, with all objections to be filed by January 31, 2025. The federal judge in the Northern District of California concluded that the revised settlement was “fair, reasonable and adequate” (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Ca. No. 4:20-cv-03919, 10/7/24)).

    Commentators immediately voiced concerns that the settlement addresses a small group of male athletes in specific sports to the disadvantage of female athletes. In addition, a number of Division I athletes may express objection on the grounds that the settlement continues to give the NCAA too much control over the free market compensation for student-athletes.

    Separately, the eight Ivy League institutions won a dismissal of a federal lawsuit that claimed their ban on athletic scholarships violated anti-trust laws. The federal district court judge assigned to the case granted the Ivy League’s motion for summary judgement, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any properly defined market and therefore failed to allege market wide anti-competitive effects (Choh v. Brown University, et. al. (D. Conn. No. 3:23-cv-00305, 10/10/24)).

    University of Louisville School of Medicine Loses First Amendment Retaliation Claim Brought by Terminated Professor

    A former professor at the University of Louisville School of Medicine will receive a trial over his First Amendment retaliation claims regarding statements he made about gender dysphoria to a conservative think tank. Following comments he made during an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, the former medical school professor was demoted and his annual contract was not renewed. The professor expressed the view that gender dysphoria in children “is a sociocultural, psychological phenomenon that cannot be fully addressed with drugs and surgery.”

    The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the university officials who terminated Allan M. Josephson should have known that he was engaged in protected speech, and that terminating him would violate his First Amendment rights. Moreover, the court ruled that the professor’s outside speech was not part of his professorial duties, and therefore subject to his First Amendment claims. The court concluded that a trial is necessary, as there are facts in dispute regarding the rationale for the actions taken against the professor (Josephson v. Ganzel (6th Cir., No. 23-05293, 9/10/24)).

    Tenured Professor Loses Defamation Case Against Harvard

    A federal district court judge partially dismissed a noted behavioral scientist’s $25 million defamation and breach-of-contract lawsuit against Harvard University. Professor Francesca Gino was placed on administrative leave following claims of data fraud in her research. Gino claimed that the university’s notice on her faculty page that she had been placed on administrative leave after conducting an investigation of her research was libelous because the university acted with ill will.

    The court concluded that the professor was a “public figure” and therefore faces a higher standard for proving defamation. A public figure in these circumstances can only prove defamation if the alleged defamer had knowledge that their statement was untrue or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Moreover, the court concluded that the issue of “research integrity and potential misconduct” is one of public concern, adding to the reason for the dismissal of the defamation claim (Gino v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. No. 1:23-cv-11775, 9/11/24)).

    Regarding the professor’s breach-of-contract claims, the professor alleged that the university’s decision to place her on administrative leave and its related disciplinary sanctions were the same as tenure removal. The judge concluded that it is premature to rule on the breach-of-contract claims.

    Public School Employees Lose Free Speech Case Challenging Anti-Racism Training

    In a case with possible application to public higher ed training, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by two Missouri public school employees who claimed that anti-bias employee training violated their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit failed because the court concluded that they were never asked to leave nor were they disciplined for expressing contrary views and that they received professional development credit for attending the anti-racism training (Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District (8th Cir No. 2301374, 9/12/24)).

    The decision provides some clarity on such training, as the court noted that the employees were not compelled to express certain views or refrain from expressing certain views during the training. The appellate court did reverse the trial judge’s ruling requiring the plaintiffs to pay $300,000 in attorney fees for filing a frivolous claim.

    Former Student’s Title IX Claim Dismissed as Alleged University Internship Did Not Exist

    A federal district court judge dismissed allegations of a sexually abusive internship at the University of Michigan because the plaintiff could not prove the internship actually existed. The court noted that none of the usual formalities, such as an application or a university authorization of an internship, were established.

    In light of this, the court dismissed the Title IX claims and allegations of failure to investigate sex harassment and abuse allegations as the plaintiff did not allege discrimination while “participating in or at least attempting to participate in” a university program or activity, as the internship did not exist. The University of Michigan prevailed in the case (Doe v. Baum ((2024 BL 340244 E.D. Mich. No. 4-21-cv-12492, 9/26/24)).

    University of Texas Professor Loses First Amendment Complaint

    A federal district judge dismissed a University of Texas professor’s First Amendment claim that his speech was “chilled” by unspecific threats following comments critical of “critical race theory and DEI-based ideology.” The judge dismissed the case, holding that the unspecific threats did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action (Lowery v. Mills ((W.D. Tex. No. 1:23-cv-00129, 10/2/24)).

    The judge ruled in favor of the University of Texas McCombs School of Business. The judge noted in a footnote, however, that the dismissal was not meant to approve of the university’s actions and that “in the context of a world-class university like UT, differences of opinion should be tolerated by those in authority, no matter that they are uncomfortable, so long as they do not incite violence or disrupt the school’s ability to function as a teaching institution.”

    Supreme Court to Review Split in Circuits Regarding Higher Ed ERISA Lawsuit

    The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments over the split in circuit courts of appeals as to when a university may be sued by employees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Employees of Cornell University alleged that improper service provider fees were charged to their pension fund. They are appealing an adverse 2nd Circuit decision stating employees must plead that the alleged “prohibited transaction” by the service provider involved either “unnecessary services” or the fees were “unreasonable” (Cunningham v. Cornell University (US No. 23-1007 cert granted 10/4/24)).

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the 3rd Circuit, the 7th Circuit, and the 10th Circuit all require the additional pleading that alleges some kind of fraud or impropriety in order to allow the case to move forward. This contrasts with the 8th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, which apply the “ERISA-as-written” rule. That rule allows a plaintiff to simply allege that a transaction between an employer and a pension or welfare plan service provider occurred and proceed with discovery over whether fraud or some other impropriety exists. We will follow developments in this case as it proceeds.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — September 2024

    HR and the Courts — September 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.

    Fired Professor Who Praised Hitler Loses Free Speech Retaliation Lawsuit

    The New Jersey Institute of Technology prevailed in a federal lawsuit brought by a former philosophy lecturer alleging retaliatory discharge. The professor’s employment agreement was not renewed after a New York Times article exposed his involvement in the “alt-right” (a far-right, white nationalist movement), including his praising Adolph Hitler as a “great European leader” and linking IQ to race. In dismissing the lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the professor’s speech disrupted, and would likely continue disrupting, the university’s administration and interfered with the university’s mission (Jorjani v. N.J. Inst. of Technology ((D.N.J. No. 2:18-cv-11693, Jud entered 7/31/24)).

    The judge held that public employers can restrict the speech of employees without violating the First Amendment when necessary to maintain effective and efficient operations. The judge also emphasized that the university did not need to wait for protests and demonstrations in order to show disruptions in operations before acting.

    NLRB: Private Colleges and Universities Must Bargain With Unions Representing Student Employees Over FERPA-Protected Information

    On August 6, 2024, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a memo acknowledging the potential conflict between the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regarding union requests for personal information about student employees. The NLRB general counsel concluded that colleges and universities in this situation must bargain with the applicable union over disclosure of such information and explain why the information request would violate FERPA.

    Further, the NLRB concluded that the college or university can bargain with the union over the distribution of FERPA waivers to applicable student employees but that asking the union to hand out such waivers would be unreasonable and a violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith because the union does not have the student contact information. The general counsel concluded that the college or university should hand out the waivers when the union does not have the student employees’ contact information.

    Proposed $2.8 Billion NCAA Settlement on Hold as Some Student-Athletes Object

    Some student-athletes claiming the NCAA artificially capped the size of college athlete scholarships too low, as well as those pursuing fair-pay claims, objected to the $2.8 billion proposed settlement of the NCAA and the Power Five conferences antitrust case. Plaintiffs in these two areas are asking the Northern District of California court to carve out their claims from the proposed settlement so that they can pursue individual claims in further litigation. The federal judge overseeing the matter questioned the proposed settlement and concluded that the settlement needed a better explanation of damages and a clearer understanding of how much each class member can expect to gain (In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal. No. 4:20-cv-3919. Brief filed 8/9/24, Fontenot v. NCAA D. Colo. No. 1:23-cv-03076, and Cornelio v. NCAA D. Colo. No. 1:24-cv-02178)).

    Two former Brown University student-athletes have dropped their objection, concluding it will not preclude them from proceeding separately in an antitrust claim against the Ivy League. The two former men’s and women’s basketball players have alleged separately that the Ivies have engaged in an illegal agreement which raised the price of an Ivy League education by illegally suppressing compensation for their services. They alleged that Brown only provided them with need-based assistance that did not cover the full cost of their education.

    Boston University Graduate Workers Strike Is Longest in the Last Decade

    Lasting over 150 days, the Boston University graduate workers strike is the longest student employee strike in the last decade, according to the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, located at the City University of New York’s Hunter College. The BU strike, which began on March 25, eclipses a similar work stoppage of 147 days at the University of Michigan in 2023. An unauthorized “wildcat” strike at the University of California, Santa Cruz may have lasted longer but the National Center points out that strike was unauthorized by the applicable union. The center concludes that this is part of the significant increase in unionization of both undergraduate and graduate student workers that has occurred over the past few years.

    The Boston University graduate workers formed their union in December 2022. The union is still engaged in efforts to secure their first collective bargaining agreement. September 3 will be the beginning of the second semester in which the grad student workers are striking. Teaching and regular higher education functions have continued at the university, though some interference with regular activities has been reported.

    Source link

  • 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

  • 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

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

    HR and the Courts — June 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 12, 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.

    Judge Halts Academic Workers’ Strike at Several University of California Campuses

    The University of California has taken legal action against United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents some 48,000 academic workers and graduate students across UC’s multiple campuses. The lawsuit requested an injunction to end the rolling strike at six campuses, which the university contended is in violation of the applicable no-strike contractual provisions. The judge granted the university’s request for a temporary restraining order on June 7, 2024. The order will halt the strike until the judge conducts a hearing over whether to grant a permanent injunction enforcing the no-strike provisions of the applicable labor contract (Regents of the University of California v. UAW Local 4811 (Cal Sup Court, No. 30-2024-01403666-CU-MC-CXC, 6/7/24)).

    This case followed the university’s complaint to the California Public Employment Relations Board alleging that the union had violated the applicable no-strike provisions. The board filed a complaint against the union, arguing it failed to give the university “adequate advance notice” and “failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith,” but declined the university’s request to seek a court order halting the strike.

    Following its exhaustion of all remedies at the state board, the university filed its own state court complaint, seeking to end the strike. The complaint accused picketers of blocking entrances to university property, including hospitals, and illegally occupying buildings. The university argued that the breach of contract endangers lifesaving research at hundreds of laboratories across many campuses. The UAW claimed that the no-strike clause is inapplicable because the university violated state law by calling in police to break up pro-Palestinian encampments on several campuses and allegedly changed workplace rules in response to the protests. The proceedings will continue with a full hearing over whether to convert the restraining order into a permanent injunction further barring the strike activity.

    University of Florida Recruit Sues Over Claimed $13.85 Million NIL Deal — NCAA Proposes Settlement of NIL Class Action

    A former football recruit has sued the University of Florida’s football coach and boosters, alleging they recruited him with the promise of $13.85 million in name, image and likeness payments and then reneged. The complaint, filed in federal district court in Florida, alleges fraud, tortious interference and other claims. The plaintiff alleges that, after the NIL offer, he rejected other lucrative offers only to have the Florida offer “decrease drastically” (Rashada v. Hathcock (N.D. Fla., 3:24-cv-00219, complaint 5/21/24)).

    The plaintiff alleges that, as a 19-year-old college-bound athlete, he was persuaded by a network of university officials and donors to flip on his commitment to the University of Miami, but they never came through on the NIL promises. After the deal never materialized, the plaintiff went to the University of Arizona instead and ultimately transferred to the University of Georgia.

    Separately, the NCAA and the Power Five conferences have proposed a nearly $2.8 billion settlement of the class action claim against them relating to their former ban on NIL payments to student-athletes. If the settlement is approved, the NCAA also agrees that it would no longer attempt to regulate NIL payments, which would be solely up to each college and university to determine and administer (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal., No., 4:20-cv-03919)).

    Court of Appeals to Review Whether Discharge for Refusal to Take Anti-Discrimination Training Is Itself Discriminatory

    The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) will decide whether to affirm a federal trial court’s dismissal of a discrimination claim brought by a White employee. The employee claimed he was discharged in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws for his refusal to take the employer’s mandatory anti-discrimination training, which he claimed was discriminatory. The plaintiff claimed the training was inherently biased against White employees, after admitting he had no knowledge of the contents of the training (Vavra v. Honeywell International Inc. (Case No. 23-02823, oral arg sched 5/21/24)).

    The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s internal emails to the company’s president, which accused the company of “race baiting,” were protected communications. The court further concluded that the plaintiff was not terminated for the communications, but rather because of his refusal to take mandatory anti-discrimination training that was not itself discriminatory. The employer’s diversity, equity and inclusion and law departments had properly vetted the training and concluded it was intended to foster an inclusive work environment.

    U.S. Supreme Court Rejects White Professor’s Claims of Race and Sex Discrimination Filed Against HBCU

    The Supreme Court turned down a request for certiorari and declined to hear a White law school professor’s claim that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had erroneously dismissed her claim of race and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The law professor had claimed that the appeals court erroneously dismissed her claims that she and other female professors were treated poorly in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act and that she was forced to resign from Texas Southern University, a historically Black institution. The court denied the professor’s two petitions for it to hear her case without issuing an opinion (Sacks v. Texas Southern University (Case Nos. 23-891 & 23-1031, Cert denied 5/13/24)).

    The plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to adopt a “totality of circumstances” standard in determining whether her claims of years of “alleged” harassment and continuing violations justified her conclusion that she felt compelled to resign. The plaintiff also complained that the lower court had denied her the right to receive female wage data while requiring her to identify male comparators to make her Equal Pay Act claims. The Supreme Court denied the professor’s request to be heard in the absence of a response from the university, which had waived its right to respond to the professor’s petitions.

    In Employment Law Matter, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Federal Courts Can No Longer Dismiss Federal Lawsuits Subject to Mandatory Arbitration

    The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split among federal appellate courts on whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal trial courts can dismiss rather than stay a lawsuit that is covered by the terms of a mandatory arbitration agreement pending the outcome of arbitration. The 1st, 5th, 8th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have previously allowed dismissal while the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th have ruled that the case must be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

    The case involved a group of drivers who claimed they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to minimum wage, overtime and paid sick leave under federal and state laws. Both sides agreed that the dispute was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement. The 9th Circuit ruled the case should be dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the specific provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act require the courts to stay the action while it is referred to arbitration, pending the outcome of the arbitration (Smith v. Spizzirri (US No, 22-1218, 5/16/24)).

    Texas Sues EEOC Over Guidance Protecting LGBTQIA+ Employees From Sex Harassment Relating to Their Choice of Pronouns and Bathrooms Consistent With Gender Identity

    The Texas attorney general has filed suit in federal court seeking to block enforcement of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent guidance aimed at shielding LGBTQIA+ employees who seek to use pronouns and bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Texas suit alleges that the most recent EEOC guidance goes beyond the statutory limits of Title VII just as the prior EEOC workplace guidance, which was vacated in Texas federal court, did (The State of Texas v. EEOC (N/D. Tex., 2:21-CV-194-Z, Complaint, filed 5/21/24)).

    Separately, a coalition of 18 Republican attorneys general have also filed suit, seeking to block this EEOC guidance and alleging the same legal overreach by the EEOC.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — May 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 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.

    Unions Representing Student Employees File Unfair Labor Practice Charges Related to Student Protests

    Nearly 30 unions representing more than 100,000 student workers at 58 campuses throughout the country have issued a joint letter supporting protesting students and condemning violent responses to peaceful protests. Unfair labor practice charges have also been filed with the National Labor Relations Board against a small number of private institutions in protest of schools’ enforcement of their rules.

    The NLRB has found in the past that civil rights protests — for example, those connected to the Black Lives Matter movement — are protected concerted activity when they are tied to protesting employer or employment discrimination matters. However, commentators have drawn a distinction related to the Israel-Hamas war protests. While each unfair labor practice case will rise and fall on the specific facts related to the situation, a university enforcing safety rules and cracking down on protests will likely not violate the National Labor Relations Act. Additionally, if a union member participates in a protest unrelated to their employment and violates university rules, the sanctions involved will likely not violate the NLRA.

    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit Against Georgetown University

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an employee-filed Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that Georgetown University had packed its retirement plans with expensive and badly performing investment options.

    The lawsuit further alleged that Georgetown had offered its faculty and staff retirement plans with too many investment options and retained multiple recordkeepers, which drove up the administrative costs of the plans. A federal district court judge dismissed the amended complaint in April 2023, ruling that the amended complaint did not address the concerns that led to the dismissal of the original complaint.

    The Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that the original complaint failed to plead any adequate claims and the proposed amended complaint was futile as it did not cure the problem (Wilcox et al. v. Georgetown University et al. (Case no. 23-7059, DC Cir. 4/23/24)).

    Student-Athlete NLRB Unionization Decisions May Modify Taxability of Athletic Scholarships

    Although the NLRB’s decision in the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team case is under review, if the board affirms the decision that players are employees and can unionize, it could ultimately cause the IRS to rethink its current position that student-athletes receiving scholarships are not employees for purposes of the tax code. This could possibly include a change in the current position that these scholarships are not taxable as income.

    If the NLRB affirms the regional director’s decision, which many commentators conclude is likely given its composition under the Biden administration, the decision is not binding for the IRS. The IRS has independent authority to conclude whether these student-athletes are employees and are receiving taxable compensation in the form of scholarships under the Internal Revenue Code. Separately, the courts are wrestling with the question of whether student-athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and are entitled to minimum wage and overtime. We will keep following these issues as they unfold.

    IRS Giving More Scrutiny to Tax-Exempt Status of Name, Image and Likeness Payments to Student-Athletes From Booster Donations

    Bloomberg reports that the IRS has begun revoking and not granting 501(c)(3) status to some groups formed to collect money from boosters to fund name, image and likeness payments to student-athletes. In testimony before the Senate finance committee, the IRS commissioner stated that they are scrutinizing those NIL groups that are not operating for tax-exempt purposes. These collectives have raised millions of dollars from boosters who generally expect those gifts to be tax deductible. For specific tax guidance, a tax professional should be consulted on questions arising in this area.

    U.S. Supreme Court Rules Job Transfers Can Violate Title VII and Other Anti-Discrimination Statutes

    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on the issue of whether a plaintiff must prove significant harm to state a claim of discrimination under the applicable anti-discrimination statutes because of a job transfer. The court reversed the holdings of some circuit courts of appeal that “significant harm” must be stated to state a claim of job discrimination resulting from a job transfer.

    Nonetheless, the Supreme Court stopped short of eliminating the harm requirement entirely. The court held that a plaintiff must show that the transfer resulted in some level of injury or harm, concluding that the statute does not require by its terms the high bar of “significant” harm (Muldrow v. St. Louis (U.S. Case No. 22-193, 4/17/24)). The concurring justices, who did not dissent, argued that the change from significant harm to some other lower level of harm was confusing and would lead to further inconsistent litigation.

    NLRB Reports 10% Rise in Case Load in First Half of Fiscal Year 2024

    The NLRB reports that case filings of unfair labor practice charges or union representation votes rose 10% during the first half of fiscal year 2024 compared to the same period in the previous fiscal year. Union election petitions rose by 35% during this period, and unfair labor practice charges rose by 7%. The NLRB has jurisdiction over private institutions of higher education and has no jurisdiction over state-based public institutions. State public institutions are generally subject to state labor boards and state statutes with separate, but often parallel, rules. This uptick in private employer unfair labor practice charges and election petitions will likely be accompanied by an increase in activity by public-sector unions at public institutions of higher education.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — April 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 9, 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.

    Dartmouth Refuses to Bargain With Men’s Basketball Team Union

    As the next chapter in the Dartmouth College men’s basketball players union dispute, Dartmouth has refused to bargain with the union elected to represent the players. The men’s basketball team voted 13-2, in a National Labor Relations Board-supervised election, to be represented in collective bargaining negotiations by the Service Employees International Union Local 560. The election was conducted after the NLRB regional director ruled that the student-athletes were employees under the National Labor Relations Act and therefore were entitled to an NLRB-supervised election as to whether they wanted a union to represent them. Dartmouth stated, “While we continue to negotiate in good faith with multiple unions representing Dartmouth employees, our responsibility to future generations of students means we must explore all our legal options for challenging the regional director’s legal error.”

    This action will likely lead to the NLRB filing unfair labor practice charges against Dartmouth. Dartmouth can defend on the grounds that the student-athletes do not meet the NLRA definition of employees. If the NLRB again rejects this argument, the case will be reviewable by a federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over this matter.

    Tufts Professors Charge That Fundraising Part of Their Salary Violates Their Tenure Contract

    A state of Massachusetts appellate court ruled that tenured faculty at Tufts University School of Medicine must pursue more discovery concerning their claim that the university’s requirement that they fundraise to pay for a significant part of their salary violates their tenure contract (Wortis v. Trustees of Tufts College (Mass., No. SJC-13472, 3/14/24)). The medical school professors claim that the fundraising requirement violates their contractual rights to academic freedom and to economic security.

    The allegations include the college nearly halving the salary and lab space of some of the professors who did not meet the fundraising requirement. The court sided with the college on the professors’ lab space claim, concluding that altering lab space did not threaten a professor’s economic security. The court concluded, however, that tenure is “permanent and continuous” once granted, and it would seem a “hollow promise” without a salary commitment of strong protections. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the tenure documents are ambiguous on “economic security” and more discovery is necessary to flush out the meaning of the tenure documents as they pertain to the college’s significant reductions of salary and full-time status alleged here.

    University Baseball Coach’s Reverse-Discrimination Claim Dismissed, But Retaliation Claim Proceeds to Jury Trial

    A White baseball coach’s reverse-discrimination claim against St. Edward’s University was dismissed. The coach claimed that he was fired after two separate investigations concluded that he did not discriminate against two Black baseball players. However, the federal trial court judge ruled that his retaliation claim that he was discharged because he complained about reverse discrimination should proceed to trial (Penders v. St. Edward’s University (2024 BL 90254, W.D. Tex., No. 1-22-CV-178 – DAE, 3/18/24)).

    While the investigations were ongoing, the university reviewed a tape submitted by one of the complaining players which evidenced the coach cursing at the player. While the university concluded that incident did not involve discrimination by the coach, it told the coach that his values were not in line with the school’s values and that he would be terminated at the end of the season.

    The coach alleged that the decision to terminate him at the end of the season was illegal and demanded another meeting with his lawyer present. The university allegedly responded a couple of hours later terminating the coach immediately. The judge ruled that the coach’s claim that his termination was “illegal” was protected activity and a jury could conclude that the termination, in close proximity to his protected activity, was an unlawful retaliation against the coach for raising his legal claim.

    School Board Prevails in Race Discrimination and Defamation Lawsuit Brought by Former Track Coach

    Maryland’s Anne Arundel County school board won summary judgement, after a judge dismissed a discrimination case brought by a former track and cross-country coach who was fired after a verbal and physical altercation with a student. The federal court dismissed the coach’s discrimination claims after review of the incident, which was recorded on video, concluding that the plaintiff exercised poor judgement in his actions, which violated school policy, and presented no evidence of discrimination or more favorable treatment of comparators (Daniels v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel County (2024 BL 77797, D. Md. No. 1:22-cv-03057, 3/8/24)).

    The federal court judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument that his conduct was justified because he also served as a substitute school security officer, concluding that his actions still violated school policy. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation claims, holding that the school board’s statements to a local news blog, including that the plaintiff had been suspended while an investigation was taking place, were not false.

    Several States Pass Ban on Anti-Union Captive-Audience Meetings — Employer DEI Training Is a Target in Conservative-Leaning States

    Five states have passed employer bans on anti-union captive-audience speeches (New York, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota) and such legislation has been introduced in nine additional states (California, Washington, Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island). Business groups in Minnesota and Connecticut have initiated litigation challenging these state bans.

    As a federal matter, the NLRB has not ruled that such captive-audience meetings violate the NLRA. However, the NLRB’s general counsel has taken the position publicly that such captive-audience meetings violate employees’ federal labor rights.

    At the same time, conservative-leaning states such as Florida have enacted restrictions on employer diversity, equity and inclusion training. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia) has struck down part of the Florida DEI restriction on First Amendment grounds. Separately, about six states, according to Bloomberg, require anti-discrimination training, including sex harassment training, as a matter distinct from DEI training. It is important to keep up with these matters according to the latest developments in the individual states in which your institution is operating.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — March 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 13, 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.

    Dartmouth College May Appeal NLRB’s Decision Allowing Basketball Players to Unionize

    The Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 to unionize, selecting the Service Employees International Union Local 560 to represent them in collective bargaining. While student-athletes at Northwestern University voted to unionize some 10 years ago, the National Labor Relations Board declined jurisdiction in that case. Here, the NLRB appears to be taking a different approach and has affirmed the regional director’s decision that the basketball players are employees of the college.

    Bloomberg reports that Dartmouth stated it has “deep respect” for its unionized workers but does not believe this path is “appropriate” for basketball players. Dartmouth has argued to the NLRB that its student-athletes are not employees and that its basketball players are participating in a voluntary extracurricular activity. The NLRB, with one dissenting vote, denied Dartmouth’s motion to stay its decision, ruling that the basketball players are employees of the institution. The legal path forward is complex, and we will report on developments as they occur.

    Separately, the NLRB is conducting a hearing on the West Coast involving an unfair labor practice complaint filed against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA regarding their refusal to bargain with a union representing football and basketball players at USC. The NLRB general counsel has publicly stated that she believes student-athletes are employees who should be able to unionize.

    Student-Athlete Employee Status Could Lead to Student Visa Problems

    The classification of college student-athletes as employees could lead to F-1 visa problems for international athletes enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. The F-1 visa restricts work to 20 hours per week when classes are in session and 40 hours per week when classes are not in session. The F-1 visa is used by roughly 20,000 international athletes enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities.

    Possible workarounds are either the P-1 visa, which is a nonimmigrant visa used by professional athletes, or an O-1 visa, which is used by individuals with extraordinary ability. Commentators conclude that these workarounds are not feasible on the scale necessary to accommodate the number of international student-athletes involved. A legislative solution will probably be necessary to address this problem should the employee status of college athletes be confirmed by the NLRB, or in other litigation under statutes such as the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    Union Membership and Strike Activity Rose Dramatically in 2023

    Bloomberg Law’s statistical analyses show that union membership and strike activity rose considerably in 2023 to levels not seen in years. Unions organized almost 100,000 new workers in NLRB-supervised elections in 2023, the largest single year total since 2000. This is the fourth-largest total one-year organizing gain since 1990, according to Bloomberg Law statistics. This is also the first time since 1990 that unions have managed to increase their annual headcount for three years in a row.

    The news is similar on the strike activity front. Over 500,000 workers participated in work stoppages in 2023. This is the second-highest number since Bloomberg Law began collecting this data in 1990. The only year that saw more strike activity since 1990 was 2018, the year of multiple city- and state-wide teacher strikes.

    SpaceX’s Challenge to NLRB’s Administrative Procedures Is Transferred From Texas to California

    A federal district court judge in Texas recently granted the NLRB’s motion to transfer SpaceX’s constitutional challenge from federal court in Texas to federal court in the Central District of California, where the underlying facts, NLRB hearing, and decision took place (SpaceX v. NLRB (S.D. Tex., No. 24-00001, Motion Granted 2/15/24)).

    SpaceX argued that the Texas venue was proper because SpaceX has operations and employees in Texas who received and were subject to a company letter, distributed nationally, that the NLRB ruled violated employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

    The Texas federal judge rejected SpaceX’s arguments, concluding that the underlying California-based administrative proceedings were brought against a California-based company and involved its California employees. With the transfer of the case to California, SpaceX lost a potentially more favorable appeals court precedent and appellate review. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) is viewed as more conservative than the 9th Circuit, which covers California. In addition, the 5th Circuit has in the past ruled that aspects of decisions by other federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, violate the U.S. Constitution.

    Employer Risk Associated With Targeting Remote Workers for Termination

    Remote work is not in and of itself a protected classification under federal or state civil rights laws. Nonetheless, the reasons for remote work could be protected, such as a disability-related concern. Bloomberg Law commentators conclude that remote workers are more likely to be laid off or miss out on promotional opportunities than peers who work in the office or in hybrid environments. Also according to Bloomberg Law, studies demonstrate that remote workers are more likely to be women, persons of color and those with disability accommodations. Evidence that any of those protected factors contributed to the termination, layoff or failure to promote could give rise to a successful challenge of the employment action under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or applicable state or federal civil rights statutes.

    Disney Actor Tests California State Law Protecting Employees From Discharge for Off-Work Political Comments

    An actor in the Disney show “The Mandalorian” filed a lawsuit claiming that she was unlawfully terminated from the show because of political comments she made outside of the workplace. Actor Gina Carano claims she was terminated after social media posts comparing the treatment of Trump supporters to how Jews were treated during the Holocaust. The plaintiff also alleges that Disney took issue with other comments she made on the COVID-19 vaccine, gender identity and voter fraud during the 2020 election.

    The lawsuit has been filed in federal court in the Central District of California and is being funded by Elon Musk. The suit was filed under a California statute that has broader protections than Title VII in protecting off-work political comments and has no cap on damages. Section 1101 of the California Labor Code protects a worker’s right to political expression outside of work, including speaking up for a candidate or cause.

    The plaintiff also alleges sex discrimination and that Disney treated male actors more favorably in similar circumstances. She alleges that male stars Mark Hamill and her co-star Pedro Pascal were treated more favorably when they engaged in off-work political statements. The breadth of the protection and scope of the California statute will be tested by this litigation brought against Disney.

    NLRB Reverses Decision, Finds Home Depot Violated NLRA Over Employee’s Black Lives Matter Slogan

    A three-member panel of the NLRB ruled 2-1 that Home Depot violated the NLRA when it told an employee that he could not work with a “BLM” slogan on his company-issued apron, thus forcing his resignation (Home Depot USA (NLRB Case no. 18-CA-273796, 2/23/24)). The NLRB panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge who had handled the trial of the case and had ruled in favor of Home Depot, holding that the company had the right to maintain its rules about company uniforms.

    The NLRB panel reversed, concluding that Home Depot violated the NLRA because the record demonstrated the employee’s protest was in furtherance of earlier group complaints about racism in the Home Depot workplace. In these circumstances, the NLRB concluded that the employee’s action in working with a Black Lives Matter slogan on his work apron was protected, concerted activity under the NLRA, as a “logical outgrowth” of earlier employee protests of race discrimination at the specific Home Depot store. The dissenting board member stated in his decision that the majority holding was an “unprecedented extension” of the “logical outgrowth” theory.



    Source link

  • Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Votes to Unionize – CUPA-HR

    Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Votes to Unionize – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 6, 2024

    On March 5, 2024, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union. The election marks the first time in nearly a decade that student-athletes have been authorized to vote for union representation and may be the first case in which their election results in certified representation.

    Background

    On February 5, the National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Laura Sacks determined that players on the Dartmouth men’s basketball team are employees under the National Labor Relation Act and are thus eligible to unionize. The decision argues that the student-athletes are employees because Dartmouth has the “right to control the work performed by” the players on the team and players receive several benefits, including, but not limited to, lodging, meals, gear and training. Sacks’s decision ordered a secret-ballot election for representation, allowing all 15 players on the roster to determine whether or not to unionize.

    On February 29, Dartmouth filed a request to the NLRB to reconsider the decision made by the regional director and to place a stay on the election or impound the ballots during the reconsideration period. The NLRB rejected these requests to reconsider the decision and stay the election, allowing the election to move forward as scheduled.

    On March 5, before the 13-2 vote, Dartmouth appealed the regional director’s decision to recognize the student-athletes as employees. The appeal asked the NLRB to review and reverse the regional director’s decision and dismiss the petition, making the following arguments in favor of doing so:

    • The NLRB regional director inaccurately defined a student-athlete as an employee.
    • The NLRB regional director contradicted precedent set by a 2015 NLRB decision involving the Northwestern University men’s football team by asserting jurisdiction in this case.*
    • There will be several adverse and unintended consequences for institutions and players if student-athletes are found to be employees, including potential immigration and Title IX issues.

    Looking Ahead

    The SEIU has five days to respond to this appeal, after which the NLRB will consider both motions. The review by the NLRB, along with any further legal challenges that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, might significantly delay the union’s official recognition and the start of collective bargaining negotiations. These processes could take months or even longer to complete.

    Several lawsuits challenging NCAA policies are also ongoing, and other recent NLRB decisions and complaints further challenge the NCAA’s structure and question the classification of student-athletes as employees. Last month, a district court judge in Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction that bars the NCAA from enforcing its policy prohibiting incoming student-athletes from capitalizing on name, image, and likeness deals prior to enrolling at a college or university. Additionally, the NLRB has also issued a complaint against the University of Southern California, the PAC-12 Conference and the NCAA, alleging the three have misclassified USC’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees and that they are joint employers of the athletes. The NLRB complaint is currently being challenged in court.

    The establishment of a student-athlete union is a divergence from the NCAA’s amateurism standards; for example, unionized players gain opportunities to negotiate compensation and working conditions related to practice hours and travel. With unionized players empowered to negotiate, the landscape of collegiate athletics may undergo a significant shift.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of upcoming developments as it relates to this case.

    *In 2015, the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction in a case involving the Northwestern University men’s football team. Prior to issuing the decision, the men’s football team had voted for representation, but the NLRB ultimately dismissed the petition filed by the union that planned to represent the unit. The NLRB held that, though Northwestern is a private institution, it is a part of the Big Ten Conference, which was comprised of all public schools except for Northwestern at the time.



    Source link