Tag: April

  • Join Us on April 17, 2025 to Fight For Higher Education (Coalition for Action in Higher Education)

    Join Us on April 17, 2025 to Fight For Higher Education (Coalition for Action in Higher Education)

    As campus workers and citizens, educators and researchers, staff, students, and university community members, we exercise a powerful collective voice in advancing the democratic mission of our colleges and universities. It is our labor and our ideas which sustain higher education as a project that preserves and extends social equality and the common good—as a project of social emancipation.

    On
    April 17, 2025, we will hold a one-day action on and around our
    campuses to renew this vision of higher education as an autonomous
    public good, and university workers as its most important resource.   

    Free Higher Ed Now! will
    demand FIRST that public higher education in the U.S. be fully funded,
    politically independent, and FREE to all students and SECOND that higher
    ed be FREE of political interference that reduces the rights and
    autonomy of campus workers and students to teach, study, learn, speak,
    organize, and dissent. Read and endorse our agenda here. 

     

    Source link

  • Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Scheduled for ASU+GSV Summit, April 8, 2025

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Scheduled for ASU+GSV Summit, April 8, 2025

    On April 8, 2025, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon will give a fireside chat at ASU+GSV, an edtech conference held in San Diego, California.  

    President Trump has tasked McMahon with dismantling the federal agency that oversees federally funded K-12 and higher education programs. In less than two weeks she has done just that.  

    Half of ED’s staff have already been fired or taken a payout, and the $1.7T student loan portfolio is likely to be transferred to the US Treasury. 

    There is no word yet on whether there will be demonstrators at the conference, but we expect some form of vocal nonviolent resistance.  AFT President Randi Weingarten is also scheduled to appear.  

    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

  • USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR

    USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 1, 2024

    Important Update: We wish to clarify an important aspect regarding the USCIS final fee rule’s exemptions/reduced fees for nonprofit organizations. The rule specifies that the exemption/reduced fees apply to entities classified under the 501(c)(3) category, as per the Internal Revenue Code. This classification may not encompass many public universities and colleges, which, while tax-exempt, are generally not designated as 501(c)(3) organizations. We are aware of the confusion this may cause within the higher education community and are working with other higher education associations to seek clarification from USCIS.

    On January 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a final rule to adjust certain immigration and naturalization benefit request fees, resulting in significantly higher fees for employment-based petitioners, with notable reductions and exemptions for certain higher education employers. USCIS claims that the increased fees, which will apply to any benefit request postmarked on or after April 1, 2024, will “allow USCIS to recover a greater share of its operating costs and support more timely processing of new applications.”

    Background

    Unlike other government agencies that receive the majority of their funding through congressional appropriations, USCIS receives approximately 96 percent of its funding from filing fees. The agency, after its last fee adjustment in 2016, conducted a fee review that revealed these fees were inadequate to meet the agency’s operating costs. This assessment led USCIS to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in January 2023, which included substantial increases to various employment-based filing fees, including up to 200 percent increases for some petitions. In response to the proposal, CUPA-HR joined comments which addressed higher ed-specific concerns with the proposal including the impact the increased fees would have had on international scholars and institutions’ ability to hire nonimmigrant workers, including H-1B workers.

    Final Rule Details

    While the final rule is nearly 330 pages long and has significant implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, this blog post focuses on the notable changes from the proposed rule to the final rule that have the most significant implications for higher ed employers.

    The proposed rule introduced a new fee to fund the Asylum Program with employer petition fees. The fee is $600 to be paid by any employer who files either a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. In the latest rule, USCIS finalized this fee but exempted the Asylum Program Fee for nonprofit petitioners that meet the Internal Revenue Code’s specific 501(c)(3) classification, resulting in a $0 fee for those entities. While the comments CUPA-HR signed onto requested that higher ed be exempt from the fee, based on precedents like the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1988, which exempted certain fees for colleges and universities, there is confusion regarding this exemption’s applicability to some public universities and colleges, as many do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification.

    In addition to the new Asylum Program Fee, USCIS is implementing the following changes to employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees:

    • Fee changes for visa classifications on Form I-129 and Form I-140: USCIS is imposing different fees for each visa classification sought on the Form I-129 nonimmigrant worker petition, replacing the uniform $460 Form I-129 filing fee across all classifications.
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for H-1B workers: USCIS had proposed a 70 percent increase in the filing fee, from $460 to $780. In the final rule DHS did not increase the filing fee for nonprofits so it is still $460 (0 percent increase).
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for L-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 201 percent increase from $460 to $1,385. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $695 (51 percent increase).
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for O-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 129 percent increase, from $460 to $1,055. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $530 (15 percent increase).
    • A full fee schedule can be found in Table 1 of the preamble to the final rule.

    In addition to the aforementioned changes, USCIS finalized its proposal to revise the premium processing timeframe interpretation from calendar days to business days. Currently, premium processing allows petitioners to receive an adjudicative action on their case within 15 calendar days. Changing the interpretation to business days will add nearly a week to the existing adjudication time.

    Update on Clarification Efforts by Higher Education

    In response to the USCIS final fee rule’s reliance on the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a nonprofit organization, specifically 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), higher education associations are actively seeking clarification from USCIS. These efforts aim to understand how the fee adjustments will impact public universities and colleges that do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification. The goal is to ensure that the unique status of higher education institutions is recognized and adequately addressed in the implementation of the fee rule.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — April 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — April 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2023

    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.

    NLRB Rules Graduate Student Fellows With No Teaching or Research Assistant Responsibilities Are Not University Employees and Cannot Unionize 

    A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director in Boston recently issued a decision that approximately 1,500 graduate student fellows at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who receive a grant but do not have any teaching or research assistant responsibilities are not employees, cannot unionize, or join the university’s existing union of approximately 3,700 graduate teaching and research assistants (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (N.L.R.B. Regional Dir. No. 01-RC-304042, 3/13/23)).

    The existing union of graduate teaching and research assistants is organized by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. According to the decision, those graduate teaching and research assistants who receive an annual compensation package of approximately $120,000, including a tuition subsidy, stipend and medical insurance are university employees. Also according to the decision, the fellows who have no teaching or research responsibilities and typically work on their own thesis projects with some funding from the university are not university employees. The decision holding that the fellows are not employees is tied to a provision in the Columbia University decision, which held that students who have “unfettered ability” to pursue their own goals would not be considered employees because their compensation would be similar to a scholarship.

    Union Complaint Dismissed After Employer’s Attempt to Increase a Unionized Employee’s Work Production Ruled Permissible On-the-Job Coaching

    An NLRB administrative law judge recently dismissed a union claim that an employer committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally changing working conditions when it suggested that a unionized staff reporter increase his output of written articles. The judge concluded that when the newspaper editors suggested that the reporter strive to write 15 articles every 30 days, that this action was a permissible attempt to coach, develop and improve the quality and production of the reporter’s work (The NewsGuild-CWA v. The Morning Call LLC (NLRB ALJ No. 04-CA-292410, 3/9/23)).

    The newspaper editors began meeting with the reporter every two weeks when they noticed he was lagging behind the paper’s standard article production goal of five articles per week. The judge noted that the editors did not threaten the reporter with penalties if he did not meet the goals. More importantly, the judge concluded that the goals were not a change in working conditions because they were less that the goals given to the rest of newsroom staff. The case clearly enforces an employer’s prerogative to meet with a unionized employee and suggest ways to improve job performance consistent with applicable workplace standards.

    EEOC Reports a 20 Percent Increase In Discrimination Charges and a Substantial Increase in Monetary Benefits Garnered for Victims of Discrimination in Fiscal Year 2022 

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported a 20 percent increase in the number of discrimination charges it received during fiscal year (FY) 2022 “as the nation emerged from the pandemic.” The charges filed against employers increased from 61,331 charges received in FY 2021 to 73,485 new charges received in FY 2022. The EEOC’s announcement came as the Biden administration proposed an increase in EEOC funding for the new fiscal year.

    The EEOC also announced that it increased the amount of monetary benefits it obtained for victims of discrimination in FY 2022. The agency reported that it obtained $513 million in benefits for victims of discrimination in FY 2022, up from $484 million in benefits obtained for discrimination victims in FY 2021.

    OSHA Reports a 20 Percent Increase in Inspectors Under the Biden Administration

    The number of federal workplace safety inspectors has increased by 20 percent during the Biden administration. The federal safety agency hired 227 inspectors during 2022, bringing its total inspectors to 900. Across all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) staff positions, the agency has grown from 1,800 staff members to 2,100 members (17 percent). This enhances OSHA’s ability to perform more workplace safety inspections and investigate more pending employee workplace safety complaints. Another result of this significant increase in inspectors is that one in five inspectors now has less than one year of on-the-job experience.

    OSHA has faced criticism that it has not adequately responded to worker complaints, and the Department of Labor’s inspector general recently issued a negative report. The inspector general concluded that the agency in recent years (both 2019 and 2020) “… did not consistently ensure that complaints and referrals were adequately addressed, nor did it regularly enforce hazard abatement timelines.”

    Court of Appeals Skeptical of Employees’ “Fundamental Right” to Refuse State-Imposed Hospital Employer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

    In a case involving a group of nurses who refused their hospital employer’s COVID-19 booster requirement for a number of personal, non-religious and non-disability-related reasons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) appeared skeptical at oral argument (Sczesny et al v. The State of New Jersey, Governor Philip Murphy (3rd Cir. Case no. 22-2230, Arg 3/21/23)). The hospital enforced a state-mandated requirement in New Jersey. The attorney for the nurses argued that they had a “fundamental right” to refuse the vaccine boosters. The Court of Appeals panel noted that a number of courts that have ruled on this issue found no “fundamental right.”

    NLRB Issues Warning That Severance Agreements With “Overly Broad” Confidentiality/Gag Provisions Relating to Non-Disparagement Are Illegal Under Recent NLRB Case Law 

    NLRB general counsel issued guidance on March 23, 2023, that previously negotiated severance agreements with overly broad confidentiality/gag orders relating to non-disparagement of employers are illegal under the March decision of McClaren Macomb. The NLRB considers employer enforcement of such provisions to be a violation of the NLRA.

    The NLRB general counsel suggested that in designing new confidentiality agreements, employers should target “dissemination of trade secrets” based on “legitimate business justifications.” Additionally, agreements should be narrowly drafted to prohibit “maliciously untrue statements.”



    Source link

  • U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken Celebrates the Impact of Cultural Diplomacy, April 5, 2021

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken Celebrates the Impact of Cultural Diplomacy, April 5, 2021








    IHEC Blog a project by David Comp: U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken Celebrates the Impact of Cultural Diplomacy, April 5, 2021




    Source link