Tag: Appeals

  • Appeals Court Stays Litigation on Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Appeals Court Stays Litigation on Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 6, 2025

    On April 29, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on the litigation challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule that will last for 120 days. The order halts further proceedings in the appeals court while the Trump administration’s Department of Labor (DOL) reconsiders the Biden administration’s rule, and it directs DOL to file additional status reports every 60 days.

    In February, the Trump administration’s DOL filed an appeal on a district court’s ruling in Flint Avenue, LLC v. DOL that vacated the Biden administration’s overtime rule. The Trump appeal was the second appeal filed for cases involving the Biden overtime rule. The move to appeal was largely viewed as an attempt for the Trump administration to put a placeholder on court proceedings while Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer settled into her new role and figured out next steps for the overtime regulations.

    The ruling from the appeals court followed a request from Trump’s DOL to hold the case in abeyance while the agency reconsidered the rule. Further updates from the Trump administration regarding the overtime regulations are likely to follow.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to the overtime regulations.



    Source link

  • Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bar on DEI Executive Orders

    Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bar on DEI Executive Orders

    by CUPA-HR | March 17, 2025

    On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit issued a decision allowing the Trump administration to enforce Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, both of which target “illegal … DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” in the public and private sectors and in federal contracts. The 4th Circuit’s decision effectively overrules a February 21 preliminary injunction issued in a U.S. District Court in Maryland that had blocked the administration from enforcing some provisions in the orders.

    As a reminder, orders 14151 and 14173 revoke prior executive orders, including Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to maintain affirmative action plans. Among other things, orders 14151 and 14173 also mandate that:

    • federal agencies include provisions in federal contracts requiring that contractors agree to comply with nondiscrimination laws and certify they do not operate any DEI programs that violate discrimination laws;
    • the Office of Management and Budget terminate all “‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘equitable decision-making,’ ‘equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,’ ‘advancing equity,’ and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate;” and
    • each agency “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”

    CUPA-HR will continue to share further developments regarding the lawsuits challenging orders 14151 and 14173.

     



    Source link

  • UPDATE: Another federal appeals court backs academic free speech for public employees

    UPDATE: Another federal appeals court backs academic free speech for public employees

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit just sided with free speech, joining five of its sister circuits in holding the First Amendment protects academic research, writing, and teaching at public colleges and universities. This carves out an important exception to the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos holding that public employees’ speech pursuant to their official duties is not protected.

    This is a big deal. Just ask Jason Kilborn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago suspended in late 2021 for using a redacted racial slur “n___” on a final exam question about employment discrimination. He also used the redacted term “b___” in the same question.

    UIC suspended Kilborn and launched an investigation into his (non-)use of the terms. That’s when FIRE stepped in — defending Kilborn, writing to UIC administrators, and securing him a lawyer through our Faculty Legal Defense Fund. With help from that lawyer, UIC briefly reached a resolution with Kilborn but it later reneged on that agreement and forced him to write reflection papers and participate in months-long training sessions before he could return to teaching.

    Kilborn sued, alleging administrators violated his constitutional right to academic freedom — and while the district court had dismissed the case, on Wednesday, the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit agreed the First Amendment protected Kilborn’s speech. That court rejected UIC’s “invitation to extend Garcetti to speech involving university teaching and scholarship when the Supreme Court was unwilling to do so,” and sent the case back to the district court. 

    With the rejection of that application of Garcetti, the district court will analyze this case using the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, which directs courts to weigh “the interests of the [employee] in commenting upon matters of public concern” against “the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” 

    This is now the sixth federal appeals court to establish this exception to Garcetti, extending academic freedom protections to public university faculty throughout Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. FIRE is currently awaiting a decision from the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit, where we’ve asked that court to do the same with respect to the Garcetti exception. Stay tuned for more as we continue to press and follow this issue closely. 

    Source link

  • U.S. Appeals Court Overturns $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

    U.S. Appeals Court Overturns $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

    by CUPA-HR | November 12, 2024

    On November 5, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower district court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s executive order and the Department of Labor (DOL)’s final rule to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. The ruling orders the legal challenge to proceed, which could ultimately strike down the executive order and final rule.

    In April 2021, the Biden administration published executive order 14026, which directed DOL to issue regulations to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour beginning on January 30, 2022. Subsequently, in November 2021, DOL issued its final rule to implement the executive order, setting the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour on January 30, 2022, and requiring the secretary of Labor to annually review and determine the minimum wage amount beginning in January 2023.

    The executive order and final rule were challenged by five states: Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska and South Carolina. In their suit, the states claimed that the Biden administration violated the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and exceeded its authority granted under the law by imposing a wage mandate through an executive order. They also argued that DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies proceed through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, when implementing the final rule. The lawsuit was originally dismissed by a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, leading the states to appeal to the 9th Circuit.

    In the 9th Circuit’s ruling, two of the three judges on the panel sided with the states’ arguments, reversing the dismissal of the case from the lower district court. The majority opinion held that the minimum wage mandate exceeded the president’s authority under FPASA and that DOL’s final rule was subject to arbitrary-or-capricious review under the APA. As such, the circuit court sends the case back to the district court, where the federal judge will proceed with the case and issue a further ruling to uphold or strike down the executive order and final rule. For now, the order and final rule are still in place, but the future of both is uncertain. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates related to this lawsuit and further laws and regulations impacting federal contractors.

     

     



    Source link

  • Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    Appeals Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Use Minimum Salary Threshold to Determine Overtime Exemptions

    by CUPA-HR | September 12, 2024

    On September 11, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor that upholds DOL’s authority to implement a minimum salary threshold to determine exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. While the ruling does not answer how other lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s rule will be decided, the ruling is significant and could help other federal judges determine whether or not to strike down the Biden administration’s increased minimum salary thresholds.

    Background

    The case’s plaintiff, Robert Mayfield, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s overtime rule in August 2022. In his lawsuit, he argued that the FLSA language on overtime exemptions only mentions a worker’s job-related duties and that implementing a salary threshold to determine exempt status exceeds DOL’s statutory authority. The Western District Court of Texas, a lower court where the lawsuit was originally filed, sided with DOL, stating that the agency has the statutory authority to implement the FLSA overtime minimum salary threshold. Mayfield appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit soon after.

    The Decision

    In its decision that sides with the Department of Labor, the 5th Circuit Court held that DOL may use a minimum salary requirement as part of its test for determining whether or not an employee qualifies as an executive, administrative and professional (EAP) employee exempt from the FLSA overtime pay requirements. Notably, the 5th Circuit Court argued that DOL does have statutory authority under the FLSA to use a salary threshold to “define and delimit the terms of exemption.”

    Though the decision allows for DOL to use a minimum salary threshold, the 5th Circuit Court did state that there is a limit to the power granted to DOL to do so. Specifically, the decision states that DOL may only use the minimum salary requirement to the extent that the salary threshold established in the regulations is a reasonable proxy for who is and who is not an EAP employee. They argued that DOL’s power to rely on proxy is not “unbounded” and that the agency “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s terms that they seek to define.

    Looking Ahead

    Outside of the Mayfield case, there are three pending lawsuits in the Eastern District Court of Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s overtime final rule. That rule implements a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA. The first increase took effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year), and the second increase is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, increasing the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year).

    The decision from the 5th Circuit does not have an immediate impact on the lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule, nor does it provide a definitive answer on how lower courts decide in those legal challenges. As such, the Biden administration’s July 1 salary threshold continues to be in effect,* and the second increase to the salary threshold is still set to take effect on January 1, 2025. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates related to the FLSA overtime pay regulations.

    *A preliminary injunction to block DOL from enforcing the overtime final rule was placed for public employees in the state of Texas. Private institutions in Texas and all other institutions outside of Texas need to be in compliance with the July 1 salary threshold.



    Source link

  • Grade Appeals to Law Professors

    Grade Appeals to Law Professors

     


    Grade
    Appeals

    To
    understand my stories is useful to know that law faculties, like most others,
    are assigned to committees. There are committees assigned to  propose
    candidates to be hired, committees to approve new courses, committees to review
    candidates for tenure and promotion. Some committees make long range plans,
    some study how to increase publications. The one I am on this year is called
    Academic standards. We typically handle appeals from students when something
    has been declined by an administrator. For example, a student can take a course
    at another law school and transfer the credit as long as they got a C. Those
    who  get a D or lower, which takes more
    effort than making a B, invariable appeal to Academic Standards to have the
    grade transferred.

    Today
    the committee met  and had two appeals I
    had never encountered before. One was from a student who had just finished the
    first year of school and had received and A in Contract Law. She complained
    that the A grade, the highest you could get, was unfairly granted. Her story
    was that in the class she had become friendly with the teacher Ed Freddy, who
    we all refer to a Mr. Freddy. The friendliness led to lunch which led to dinner
    (all without the knowledge of Mrs. Freddy) and well you can guess where this is
    going.

    They had falling out somewhere near the end of the semester and their fling was
    over.  Then the final exam came. In law
    school in most courses the final exam determines the grade for the entire
    semester. She took the exam and received her grade which, as I mentioned was an
    A. Her petition to us was that she only got and A because of the “services” she
    supplied to Mr. Freddy and that rather be treated like a prostitute she wanted
    a grade no higher than a B. We tabled this case until our next meeting to give
    a chance to evaluate her final exam ourselves.

    Our
    second appeal today was equally bizarre. First you have to understand that law
    schools and other University department hire visitors who teach for a semester
    or a  year are not on the permanent
    faculty. Last year we hired Mary McCan to teach for a
    semester.     
    She was young, an average teacher, ambitious, frumpy-looking, and  lonely in our small college town.  According to the petition on the last night
    of finals she when out with a few students including the petitioner and she
    brought  one of them home with her. They
    were evidently quite drunk. According to the student, when he got ready to leave she
    blocked the door. In his words he then “obliged her as a courtesy”. The student
    got a B in the course and complained he did not deserve a B. In his words he did
    not know if he had “he’d fucked himself up from a C or down from an A.” He said
    that neither was acceptable and he wanted us to read his paper to determine if
    he deserved either and A or a C, which he was willing to accept.

    Source link