Category: Title IX

  • Title IX Case Against Maine Schools Headed to U.S. Department of Justice – The 74

    Title IX Case Against Maine Schools Headed to U.S. Department of Justice – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    The conflict between the state of Maine and the Trump administration over transgender student athletes reached a new pivot point on Monday. As the first of several deadlines set by the federal government has now expired, whether Maine can continue to allow trans athletes to participate in school sports appears likely to be decided by the courts.

    Two separate federal agencies determined that Maine is in violation of Title IX based on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the anti-sex discrimination protection.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a final warning Monday to the Maine Department of Education regarding its noncompliance with a federal directive for allowing trans girls to participate in girls’ sports.

    If the state does not propose an agreement that’s acceptable to the office by April 11, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice, the letter said.

    Meanwhile, a separate investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office that found Maine in violation of Title IX for “continuing to unlawfully allow” trans girls to compete in girl’s sports has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice, according to a Monday social media post from the agency.

    In a letter dated March 17, HHS had given Maine a deadline of 10 days to comply with federal guidance. Monday marked ten business days from that warning.

    Both agencies determined that Maine had violated federal law after dayslong investigations that included no interviews, while typical investigations take months and are eventually settled with resolution agreements. The probes were launched after Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump had a heated exchange over the state’s trans athlete policy. Millions of dollars in federal funding might be at risk, depending on how the cases proceed.

    “We just need an answer at this point as to, ‘Does the Trump administration have the authority to do what it’s doing when it comes to fast tracking the removal of federal funds?’” said Jackie Wernz, a former OCR lawyer for the Education Department who now represents school districts nationwide in these types of cases.

    “This is just unprecedented, and we’re not following the process that we’re used to. So I think it’s going to be really helpful for courts to start weighing in on whether or not they have the authority to do this.”

    Meanwhile, Republican state lawmakers said in a news conference on Tuesday that they want the state to repeal trans students’ rights to athletics, locker rooms and bathrooms, and to roll back inclusion of gender as a protected class in the Maine Human Rights Act.

    “The problem is that the term gender identity and the Human Rights Act is being interpreted way too broadly by the left,” said Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook). “And what it’s saying is there’s no boundary between men’s and women’s spaces.”

    Rep. Michael Soboleski (R- Phillips) said he is introducing a bill to remove consideration of gender identity from the act, and asked Democrats and Mills to support the legislation in order to avoid the risk of losing federal funding.

    Earlier this year, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove civil rights from a state law when its Legislature voted to remove gender identity from its civil rights act.

    “This is not sustainable,” Stewart said. “We’re a poor state. We are heavily reliant on federal money. The governor needs to move on this.”

    On March 19, the Department of Education’s civil rights office notified Maine of its noncompliance and proposed a resolution agreement that would require the state to rescind its support of trans athletes, which is currently required by the Maine Human Rights Act. A Cumberland-area school district and the Maine Principals Association, which runs student athletics, that were also found in violation have already refused to sign the agreement.

    This development is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to enforce Title IX provisions concerning gender and athletics. Earlier this year, the administration launched investigations in several other states for similar policies allowing trans athletes to compete in alignment with their gender identity.

    Title IX, the federal law banning sex-based discrimination, does not reference trans people directly, but the Trump administration has interpreted Maine’s policy as discrimination against cisgender girls.

    Rachel Perera, a fellow in the governance studies program for the Brown Center on Education Policy at national think tank The Brookings Institution, said the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX leaves room for questioning. If the policy goes to trial, she said federal courts may come up with a clearer interpretation.

    “It’s going to be really important to see how Maine proceeds, because they’re sort of setting the tone in terms of these other states and other localities who are going to be trying to navigate these very same dynamics,” she said.

    Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Trump Issues Executive Order to Restrict Gender Ideology in the Federal Government

    Trump Issues Executive Order to Restrict Gender Ideology in the Federal Government

    by CUPA-HR | January 22, 2025

    On January 20, the Trump administration issued an executive order (EO) titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The EO was one of several executive orders and actions published by the Trump administration on its first day in office.

    The EO states that the United States government will recognize only two sexes — male and female — and defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.” The definition continues to say that sex is “not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’” The executive order also defines “woman” and “girl” and “man” and “boy” to be adult and juvenile human females and males, respectively.

    The EO orders the secretary of health and human services to provide guidance expanding on the definitions established in the EO. It also directs all federal agencies to use the definitions set forth in the order “when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.” All federal agencies will also be directed to use the term “sex” and not “gender” when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions in applicable federal policies and documents.

    It also appears that the Trump administration hopes to codify these definitions into law through Congressional action. Specifically, the EO directs the assistant to the president for legislative affairs to provide the president proposed bill text to codify the definitions set in the order within 30 days.

    The EO also discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The EO states that the Biden administration argued that the Bostock decision “requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under, for example, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act,” which the Trump administration states is “legally untenable.” As such, the EO directs the U.S. attorney general to issue guidance to federal agencies to “correct the misapplication” of Bostock to “sex-based distinctions in agency activities.” The EO also directs the attorney general to issue guidance and assist federal agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions.

    The EO directs all federal agencies to submit an update to the Trump administration on implementation of this order within 120 days. The update is required to include information on changes to agency documents and agency-imposed requirements on federally funded entities, including federal contractors, that were implemented to comply with the order. The head of each federal agency is also directed to rescind all guidance documents inconsistent with the requirements of the order, and the EO includes a partial list of documents that the administration deems as inconsistent, including several Department of Education guidance documents on Title IX and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

    Finally, the EO directs agencies to take “all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the federal funding of gender ideology” and to “assess grant conditions and grantee preferences” to “ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

    Federal agencies will soon begin to take action and announce guidance to comply with the EO requirements. Institutions should therefore be aware of forthcoming guidance from the Department of Education on Title IX as a result of this EO. There could also be future ramifications for institutions that receive federal funds, including grants and contracts. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for agency actions as well as any additional updates from the Trump administration as it relates to sex and gender-related policy.



    Source link

  • Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    by CUPA-HR | January 9, 2025

    On January 9, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky Court vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations. The order strikes down the regulations nationwide, reverting enforcement back to the 2019 Title IX regulations set by the Trump administration.

    Background

    The Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was released in April 2024 and was set to take effect on August 1, 2024. Soon after the rule was published, several states filed legal challenges against it, resulting in preliminary injunctions that blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states that did not challenge the regulations.

    The Biden administration appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Supreme Court, requesting that the court limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts to block only those provisions that related to gender identity. They argued that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students and that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements set forth by the final rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Biden administration’s request, arguing that the gender identity provisions were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    District Court Judge’s Ruling

    In the ruling that vacates the rule nationwide, the federal judge stated that the Biden administration’s Title IX rule is unlawful because Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not include the scope laid out in the regulations, which include expanded protections for pregnancy or related conditions, gender identity and sexual orientation. The order also states that the rule violates the First Amendment and that it is “arbitrary and capricious.”

    Looking Ahead

    The judge’s order almost certainly ends any hopes for the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations to take effect nationwide. The Biden administration may decide to appeal the decision to a higher court, but efforts to reinstate the rule will likely be unsuccessful given the few days they have left in office and the incoming Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend the rule in court. Alternatively, the Trump administration may seek to update their 2019 Title IX regulations, though any urgency to do so may be diminished now that the 2019 regulations are back in place.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for Title IX updates and keep members apprised via Washington Insider Alert emails and the blog.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — December 2024

    HR and the Courts — December 2024

    by CUPA-HR | December 10, 2024

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

    Terminated Professor May Pursue Title IX, Anti-Male Bias Claim as John Doe

    A former Boston University professor may anonymously pursue his Title IX claim that the university’s sexual harassment investigation leading to his termination was itself biased against males. The court noted that the use of pseudonyms is strongly disfavored in civil litigation. The judge nonetheless allowed it in this case for the following reasons: the plaintiff’s strong and realistic fear of reputational damage, the chilling effect that name disclosure could have on future litigants, the public interest in disclosing Doe’s identity does not appear significant, and the use of a pseudonym will not prejudice the university’s defense. The case will move forward without disclosure of the professor’s name (Doe v. Trustees of Boston University (2024 Bl 399572 D. Mass. No. 1:24-cv-10619, 11/6/24)).

    Division I Tennis Player Narrows Lawsuit Against NCAA Following Dismissal of Initial Complaint

    A Division I tennis player at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has narrowed her class action complaint against the NCAA a month after her request for an injunction was denied. The federal judge did not view her claim as being ultimately successful because of its breadth. The plaintiff made it to the third round of the U.S. Open tennis tournament in 2021 and was entitled to $48,913 in prize money. NCAA rules allowed her to accept only $10,000 in prize money from all competitions that year. Accepting more would have jeopardized her ability to play on the women’s tennis team at UNC. She was also forced to forfeit other prize money she won in 2021.

    Her initial complaint sought to represent a class of all Division I student-athletes in all individual sports, including swimming and golf. Her amended complaint limits the class to Division I tennis players (Brantmeier v. NCAA (M.D. N.C. No. 1:24-cv-00238, 11/8/24)).

    Federal Court Dismisses Professor’s Claim That DEI Statement on University Application Screening Process Would Render His Application Futile

    A plaintiff’s claims that a university’s required DEI statement on its initial applicant screening process made his application futile or put him a disadvantage to other parties have been dismissed. A California federal trial court dismissed the claims for lack of standing, as the plaintiff professor never actually applied for the position in question. The court concluded that the professor, who had amended his complaint three times, did not include an actual allegation that he applied for the position.

    In dismissing the case against the University of California, Santa Cruz, the court concluded that the professor’s “futility” claim failed because he may well have passed the initial screening stage notwithstanding the DEI statement (Haltigan v. Drake (N.D. Cal. No. 5:23-cv-02437, 11/15/24)).

    House Committee on Education and the Workforce Investigating “Information Sharing Agreement” Between DOL and a Plaintiff’s Law Firm

    Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have called upon the Department of Labor’s inspector general to investigate the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) after it shared confidential material with a law firm suing a company that had been the target of a prior agency audit. The material was provided to the plaintiff’s law firm Cohen Milstein Sellars & Toll PLLC under a DOL “information sharing agreement” between the department’s division and the law firm.

    Common interest agreements are standard in litigation when two parties in active litigation share plaintiff or defense interest on the same side of the litigation. In this case, however, the DOL was not a party to the litigation nor had it filed a lawsuit against the defendant involved in this private litigation. The request to the DOL’s inspector general also asks how many other common interest agreements the EBSA has with other plaintiff law firms.

    Coach Denied Injunction Reinstating Him Following Alleged Use of Slur Involving Transgender Athletes

    A high school coach who filed a First Amendment lawsuit against his school district is denied a court-ordered injunction reinstating him while he litigates the propriety of his alleged statements. The coach claims his First Amendment rights were violated when he was terminated following his email critical of the school district’s position on transgender athletes. The school district defended, stating that he would have been terminated regardless of the email because another coach reported that he used a slur in referring to transgender athletes.

    In denying the coach’s request for an injunction, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not show irreparable harm that could not be compensated by monetary damages. The court ruled that the school district’s responsibility to ensure that all students feel safe and are not harassed outweighs the coach’s personal interests in this matter (Parks v. Lake Oswego School District (D. Or., No.3:24-cv-0119, 11/25/24)).



    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

  • Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 19, 2024

    On August 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s request to partially overturn preliminary injunctions from lower courts that block the Department of Education from enforcing the administration’s April 2024 Title IX final rule. The decision leaves the preliminary injunctions from the lower district courts in place, preventing the new Title IX rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states.

    Background

    Shortly after the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was published, over two dozen states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the rule. Over the course of the summer, decisions from lower district courts across the country placed preliminary injunctions on the final rule, leading to the blocking of the final rule in 26 states, as well as at hundreds of schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United and Moms for Liberty are in attendance.*

    After several preliminary injunctions were issued, the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court with an emergency request asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts. Specifically, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to only block provisions of the Title IX final rule related to gender identity, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students. The Biden administration had hoped that by limiting the scope of the preliminary injunctions, other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements would be able to take effect on August 1.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s plea to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions, leaving in place the lower courts’ rulings. The majority opinion stated that the Biden administration did not provide a strong enough argument to sway the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, and they argued that the gender identity provisions the Biden administration had hoped to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    Looking Ahead

    With the Supreme Court’s decision, the preliminary injunctions from the lower courts are still in place. Further decisions from the district courts on the legality of the final rule are still pending. The Title IX rule could return to the Supreme Court in the future, however, depending on how lower courts rule on the legality of the final rule and whether those decisions are appealed.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the legal challenges against the Biden administration’s Title IX rule.

    *The 26 states where the rule is blocked from being enforced by the Department of Education are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The final rule is also blocked from taking effect at hundreds of colleges and universities across the country, including in states that did not challenge the Title IX final rule. A list of those schools can be found here.



    Source link

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

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

    by CUPA-HR | August 1, 2024

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

    Background

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

    Lawsuits

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

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

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

    Looking Ahead

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

     



    Source link

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

    Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 11, 2024

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

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

    Department of Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

    Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

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

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

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

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

    Department of Homeland Security

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

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

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

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



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — July 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 10, 2024

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

    University of California and UAW Agree to End Grad Student Strike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

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

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

    by CUPA-HR | June 17, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ED’s Final Rule and Subsequent Lawsuits

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

    Judge’s Order

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

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

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

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



    Source link