Tag: CUPAHR

  • Overtime and Title IX Final Rules Targeted for Early 2024 Release in Fall Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Overtime and Title IX Final Rules Targeted for Early 2024 Release in Fall Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 12, 2023

    On December 6, the Biden administration released the Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, providing the public with an update on the regulatory and deregulatory activities under development across approximately 67 federal departments, agencies and commissions. This release is the second and final regulatory agenda for 2023, and it sets target dates for upcoming regulatory actions mainly for the first half of 2024.

    CUPA-HR has highlighted the following items from the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda for members to be aware of as we enter the new year. As a reminder, these target dates are not a guarantee, but they provide insight into when we can possibly expect the regulations to be published. CUPA-HR’s government relations team will continue to monitor for any updates on the following regulations and others that may impact the higher education space.

    Department of Labor

    Wage and Hour Division — Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees

    According to the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has targeted April 2024 for release of the final rule to update the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay regulations. The final rule seeks to increase the minimum salary threshold required for white-collar professionals to maintain exempt status under the FLSA.

    On September 8, WHD released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update the salary threshold. The NPRM increases the minimum salary threshold from its current level of $35,568 per year ($684 per week) to $60,209 annually ($1,158 per week), which amounts to a nearly 70% increase.* Additionally, WHD proposes to automatically increase the salary level every three years by tying the threshold to the 35th percentile of full-time salaried wages in the lowest wage census region. DOL indicated in the proposed rule that it is considering implementing an effective date in the final rule that could come as soon as 60 days after the final rule is published to the public.

    CUPA-HR was joined by 49 other higher education associations in submitting comments in response to the NPRM. In our comments, we raised concerns with the timing of this increase, the size of the proposed increase, the implementation of automatic updates, and the timeline for regulatory compliance that WHD anticipates. Our comments were informed by a CUPA-HR member survey, in which over 300 members provided feedback on their concerns with and thoughts about the proposal. For ongoing updates, visit CUPA-HR’s FLSA Overtime page.

    Wage and Hour Division — Employee or Independent Contractor Classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act

    The Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda indicates that WHD anticipated releasing the FLSA independent contractor rule in November 2023. The final rule has been at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review since September 28, 2023, and once the agency finishes its review, the rule will be published.

    On October 13, 2022, the DOL published an NPRM to rescind the current method for determining independent contractor status under the FLSA. The current test, finalized by the Trump administration in 2021, has two core factors of control and investment with three additional factors (integration, skill and permanency) that are relevant only if those core factors are in disagreement. The Biden rule proposes a return to a “totality-of-the-circumstances analysis” of multiple factors in an economic reality test, including the following six factors, which are equally weighted with no core provisions:

    • The extent to which the work is integral to the employer’s business.
    • The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill.
    • The investments made by the worker and the employer.
    • The worker’s use of skill and initiative.
    • The permanency of the work relationship.
    • The degree of control exercised or retained by the employer.

    Employment and Training Administration — Revising Schedule A to Include Updating Occupations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

    The regulatory agenda indicates that DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) aimed to issue a Request for Information (RFI) in November 2023. According to the notice in the agenda, ETA is seeking input from the public “on whether Schedule A serves as an effective tool for addressing current labor shortages, and how the Department may create a timely, coherent and transparent methodology for identifying STEM occupations that are experiencing labor shortages in keeping with its requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act … to ensure the employment of foreign nationals does not displace U.S. workers or adversely affect their wages and working conditions.”

    The RFI was sent to OIRA for review before publication on November 11, 2023, and will likely be released to the public soon.

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

    Regulations to Implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    In December 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) plans to issue a final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The rule will create a framework for the EEOC on how to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA. For a detailed analysis of the proposed rule on implementing the PWFA, please see CUPA-HR’s blog post.

    In December 2022, the PWFA was signed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The law establishes employer obligations to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees so long as such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship on the business, and makes it unlawful to take adverse action against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations. The requirements of the law apply only to businesses with 15 or more employees.

    Unlike the other regulations with target dates, the PWFA final rule has a statutory deadline for publication, which is December 29, 2023. Given this upcoming deadline, we will likely see the EEOC publish this rule soon.

    Department of Education

    Office for Civil Rights — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

    According to the regulatory agenda, the Department of Education (ED) anticipates releasing the highly anticipated Title IX final rule in March 2024. The rulemaking would finalize the June 2022 NPRM to roll back and replace the Trump administration’s 2020 regulations while simultaneously expanding protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions.

    CUPA-HR filed comments in September 2022 in response to the NPRM. In our comments, we brought attention to the possible impact the proposed regulations could have on how higher education institutions address employment discrimination.

    The new March target deadline marks the third time ED has delayed the issuance of the Title IX final rule. The rule was originally targeted for release in May 2023, but ED subsequently pushed the target date back to October 2023 via a blog post, when it became clear that the department would not meet the May timeline. Since ED missed the October timeline, they have faced increased pressure from Congressional Democrats and other advocacy groups to publish the final rule as soon as possible. While it’s not a guarantee ED will be able to publish the final rule in March 2024, the increased pressure will certainly motivate the department to move quickly.

    CUPA-HR plans to hold a webinar to inform members of the final rule’s new requirements once the final rule has been published. Details to come.

    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

    Similar to the Title IX final rule above, ED plans to issue a final rule on student eligibility in athletic programs under Title IX in March 2024. The rule would finalize the NPRM that was released by the department 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 serve important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The department further explains 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 NPRM received over 150,000 comments addressing support for and concerns with the proposal. ED must review all comments before issuing a final rule to implement these regulations, which is the likely cause of delay for both this rulemaking and the broader Title IX final rule.

    Department of Homeland Security

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program

    On October 23, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule that aims to improve the H-1B program by simplifying the application process, increasing the program’s efficiency, offering more advantages and flexibilities to both petitioners and beneficiaries, and strengthening the program’s integrity measures.

    Prompted by challenges with the H-1B visa lottery, USCIS has prioritized a proposed rule to address the system’s integrity. The proposed rule is aimed at strengthening the lottery registration process and preventing fraud, and it makes critical revisions to underlying H-1B regulations. For a detailed summary of what the H-1B proposal includes, see CUPA-HR’s blog post.

    The NPRM is open for public comment until December 22, 2023. The Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda included the regulations, but it did not provide a timeline for issuing the final rule, likely because the comment period is still open for the NPRM.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements

    In April 2024, USCIS anticipates issuing a final rule to adjust the fees charged by the agency for immigration and naturalization benefit requests.

    USCIS published an NPRM on this issue in January 2023. The comprehensive proposal has implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, but certain provisions would have significant impacts for higher education employers. Specifically, the proposed rule includes a provision to fund the Asylum Program with employer petition fees, which would be a $600 fee paid by any employers who file either a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to increase almost all employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees. For more information on the details of this proposed rule, see CUPA-HR’s blog post.

    On March 13, 2023, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education’s comments in response to the NPRM. The comments address higher ed-specific concerns with the proposal to increase fees for immigration and naturalization benefit requests, including concerns about the impact the increased fees will have on international scholars and institutions’ ability to hire nonimmigrant workers, including H-1B workers.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Petition for Immigrant Worker Reforms

    The regulatory agenda shows that USCIS plans to issue an NPRM in August 2024 that will “amend its regulations governing employment-based immigrant petitions in the first, second and third preference classifications.” According to the posting, the proposed rule would “codify current policy guidance and implement administrative decisions regarding successorship-in-interest and ability to pay; update provisions governing extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers; modernize outdated provisions for individuals of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers; … implement reforms to ensure the integrity of the I-140 program; and correct errors and omissions.”

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Modernizing Regulations Governing Nonimmigrant Workers

    In October 2024, USCIS plans to issue an NPRM to update employment authorization rules for dependent spouses of certain nonimmigrants and to increase flexibilities for nonimmigrant workers. CUPA-HR plans to monitor for any updates to this rule as it may apply to H-1B or other relevant nonimmigrant visas used by institutions.

    Department of State

    Pilot Program to Resume Renewal of H-1B Nonimmigrant Visas in the United States for Certain Qualified Noncitizens

    In February 2024, the Department of State plans to begin a pilot program to “resume domestic visa renewal for qualified H-1B nonimmigrant visa applicants who meet certain requirements.” The department will issue a notice in the Federal Register that will describe pilot program participation requirements and will provide “information on how those falling within the bounds of the pilot program may apply for domestic visa renewal.” The pilot program has been at OIRA since October 17, meaning the pilot notice could be published sooner than anticipated.

    * The discrepancy between our figure of $60,209 and the DOL’s preamble figure of $55,068 arises from DOL’s own projections based on anticipated wage growth. The DOL’s proposed rule is rooted in 2022 data (yielding the $55,068 figure), but a footnote in the NPRM confirms that the salary threshold will definitely change by the time the final rule is issued to reflect the most recent data. Our comments, aiming to respond to the most probable salary threshold at the time a final rule is released, references the DOL’s projected figure for Q1 2024, which is $60,209. We do not believe DOL will be able to issue a final rule before Q1 2024, so we are incorporating this projected figure into our response to the NPRM. In essence, our goal is to provide members with a clearer picture of the likely salary figure when the final rule comes into play.



    Source link

  • Pay Equity Still Lags for Women Administrators – CUPA-HR

    Pay Equity Still Lags for Women Administrators – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | November 29, 2023

    An analysis of two decades worth of CUPA-HR data on gender and pay in higher ed administrative roles paints a troubling picture of pay equity. In 2022, women made up 51% of administrators in college and universities, but they were paid 93 cents for each dollar a man in an administrator position was paid. This represents an increase of just 3 cents from 2002, when women made 90 cents for each dollar a man was paid.

    Among chief human resources officers, the pay disparity is even wider. Though three in four (76%) of CHROs are women, their pay in 2022 was only 89 cents for each dollar male CHROs were paid. Deputy CHROs who are women were paid only 83 cents, a figure that remained unchanged from 2002 through 2022.

    The Higher Ed Administrators: Trends in Diversity and Pay Equity From 2002 to 2022 report also found that people of color — women especially — are increasingly represented in administrative positions. Drawing on 10 years of data, CUPA-HR found that between 2012 and 2022, the representation of people of color in higher ed administration increased by 41%. In 2012, people of color comprised 13% of administrators and in 2022, 18% of administrators. Women of color went from comprising 7% of higher ed administrators in 2012 to 10% of higher ed administrators in 2022.

    Despite these gains in representation, women of most races and ethnicities are still paid less than White men in the same administrator positions.

    The Report’s Major Findings Include:

    • The past 20 years saw an increase of 20% of women in administration, from 43% in 2022 to 51% in 2022, but pay equity for women has not kept pace. In 2002, women in administrator positions were paid 90 cents for each dollar men in administrator positions were paid. Two decades later, women in administrator positions were paid just 93 cents for each dollar men in administrator positions are. These wage gaps are not explained by the fact that women may have greater representation in lower-paying positions.
    • From 2012-2022, the representation of people of color in administrative roles increased by 41%. The biggest increases were among administrators of two or more races (290% increase) and Asian administrators (76%). Women of color have seen more than double the percentage increase in representation than men of color (54% increase for women versus 26% for men).
    • But people of color are still underrepresented in administrative positions. Using the percentage of people of color with U.S. graduate degrees (31%) as a comparison, we find that only 18% of higher ed administrators were people of color in 2022.
    • Women’s representation in executive roles increased, but pay inequity still exists. In 2022, women held one in three campus presidencies, an increase of 60% from 2002. In 2002, female presidents were paid 92 cents on the dollar to male presidents and saw only a 1-cent increase in the 20 years since. The worst pay equity for presidents was for Hispanic or Latina women, who were paid 82 cents per dollar paid to White men. In the same time span, the representation of women provosts increased, comprising nearly half (48%) of provosts in 2022. The gender pay gap narrowed as well: Female provosts were paid 91 cents on the dollar compared to male provosts in 2002, and in 2022, female provosts were paid 96 cents on the dollar compared to male provosts.
    • CHRO gender pay equity remains low. In 2022, three in four (76%) CHROs were women, with White women representing 60%. In 2002, female CHROs were paid 86 cents for each dollar male CHROs were paid. In 2022, female CHROs were paid only 89 cents for each dollar male CHROs were paid.

    Addressing the Administrative Pay Gap

    Addressing pay inequity and increasing the representation of people of color among higher ed administrators requires long-term solutions like conducting pay analyses. CUPA-HR’s DataOnDemand for the Administrators in Higher Education Survey features the most comprehensive data available on higher ed administrator salaries, as well as data on pay equity and representation for women and people of color for every administrative position.

    Recruiting a more diverse pool of faculty candidates and mitigating bias in faculty promotions are also important to succession planning, as one notable path to the presidency is to start off as a faculty member, ascend to dean, then to provost, and then to president.

    You also might consider what talent pipeline programs exist on your campus. For inspiration, see these models of internal talent development:



    Source link

  • Artificial Intelligence Sparks the Interest of Federal Policymakers – CUPA-HR

    Artificial Intelligence Sparks the Interest of Federal Policymakers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 15, 2023

    A growing interest in artificial intelligence and its potential impact on the workforce has sparked action by policymakers at the federal level. As employers increasingly turn to AI to fill workforce gaps, as well as improve hiring and overall job quality, policymakers are seeking federal policies to better understand the use and development of the technology. Recent policies include an executive order from the Biden administration and a Senate committee hearing on AI, both of which are detailed below.

    Executive Order on AI Use and Deployment

    On October 30, the Biden Administration released an executive order delineating the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” The order urges responsible AI deployment that satisfies workforce development needs and ethical considerations.

    The executive order directs several agency heads to issue guidance and regulations to address the use and deployment of AI and other technologies in several policy areas. Some orders of particular interest to higher education HR include:

    • The secretary of labor is directed to submit a report analyzing ways agencies can support workers who may be displaced by AI.
    • The secretaries of labor, education and commerce are directed to expand education and training opportunities to provide pathways to careers related to AI.
    • The secretary of labor is ordered to publish principles and best practices for employers to help mitigate harmful impacts and maximize potential benefits of AI as it relates to employees’ well-being.
    • The secretary of labor is directed to issue guidance clarifying that employers using AI to monitor employees’ work are required to comply with protections that ensure workers are compensated for hours worked as defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
    • The secretary of labor is directed to publish guidance for federal contractors on nondiscrimination in hiring practices that involve the use of AI and other technology.
    • The director of the National Science Foundation is directed to “prioritize available resources to support AI-related education and AI-related workforce development through existing programs.”
    • The secretary of education is ordered to develop resources and guidance regarding AI, including resources addressing “safe, responsible and nondiscriminatory uses of AI in education.”
    • The secretary of state is ordered to establish a program to “identify and attract top talent in AI and other critical and emerging technologies at universities [and] research institutions” and “to increase connections with that talent to educate them on opportunities and resources for research and employment in the United States.”
    • The secretary of homeland security is directed to continue its rulemaking process to modernize the H-1B program and to consider a rulemaking that would ease the process of adjusting noncitizens’ status to lawful permanent resident status if they are experts in AI and other emerging technologies.

    The executive order directs the agency heads to produce their respective guidance and resources within the next year. As these policies and resources begin to roll out, CUPA-HR will keep members updated on any new obligations or requirements related to AI.

    Senate HELP Committee Hearing on AI and the Future of Work

    On October 31, 2023 the Senate Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee held a hearing titled “AI and the Future of Work: Moving Forward Together.” The hearing provided policymakers and witnesses the opportunity to discuss the use of AI as a complementary tool in the workforce to skill and reskill American workers and help them remain a valuable asset to the labor market.

    Democrats and Republicans on the committee agreed that AI has the potential to alter the workforce in positive ways but that the growth of the use of the technology needs to be supported by a framework of regulations that do not smother its potential. According to witnesses, employers using AI currently face a patchwork of state and local laws that complicate the responsible use and growth of AI technologies. They argued that a federal framework to address the safe, responsible use of AI could help employers avoid such complications and allow AI use to continue to grow.

    Democrats on the committee also asked whether education opportunities and skills-based training on AI can help provide an employment pathway for workers. Witnesses argued that AI education is needed at the elementary and secondary level to ensure future workers are equipped with the skills needed to work with AI, and that skills-based training models to reskill workers have proven successful.

    CUPA-HR will continue to track any developments in federal AI regulations and programs and will inform members of updates.



    Source link

  • Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Paid Leave – CUPA-HR

    Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Paid Leave – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 14, 2023

    On October 25, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on federal paid leave. This comes as congressional Democrats and Republicans have shown interest in finding bipartisan consensus for a federal paid leave program. The hearing also provided policymakers and witnesses the opportunity to discuss the promise and drawbacks of paid leave proposals.

    Increasing employee access to paid leave was a primary focus of the hearing. Both sides of the aisle agreed that all workers will need to take leave during their careers without the obligation to juggle work requirements. Policymakers highlighted that 70 percent of Americans want national paid leave and that 72 percent of Americans who are not currently working cite caregiving and family responsibilities as the main reason. To address these issues, Democrats argued for a federally mandated paid leave program, while Republicans worried that a one-size-fits-all program could limit employer-provided paid leave options and be difficult to implement on a wide scale.

    Witnesses Describe Potential Benefits of Federal Paid Leave

    Some of the witnesses discussed the benefits of a federal paid leave program, concluding that better access to paid leave would benefit workers, employers and the economy. Jocelyn Frye, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, stated that offering paid leave tends to benefit both workers and employers through increased labor force participation (both for women and generally), worker retention, and wage growth. Ben Verhoeven, president of Peoria Gardens Inc., added that investing in paid leave gave him better return on investment than his capital investments, as implementing paid leave increased business growth and employee retention and promotions.

    Objection to a One-Size-Fits-All Leave Program

    Despite these benefits, Elizabeth Milito, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business’s Small Business Legal Center, said that employers would face trade-offs under a federal paid leave program. Milito argued that employers operating on the same amount of funds but under new federal benefit requirements would be obliged to provide paid leave as a benefit, leading to some employers being unable to provide higher compensation or other benefits like health insurance. Rachel Greszler, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said that in response to state paid leave programs, some companies choose to send workers to the state program first and then supplement the paid leave benefit to provide 100 percent wage replacement. This creates an administrative burden for the employee, who receives full wage replacement only if they participate in both paid leave programs.

    Republicans and their witnesses also said that a federal program would require flexibility and simplicity to be most effective. Milito and Greszler concurred that most small businesses do not have a qualified HR professional to deal with additional compliance needs. Greszler also stated that the biggest unintended consequence of a one-size-fits-all approach would be a rigid structure that does not work for most employees and businesses. She specified that a carve-out for small businesses or the ability to opt in to a federal program would be most appropriate.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor for any updates on federal paid leave programs and will keep members apprised of any new developments.



    Source link

  • Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 9, 2023

    On October 23, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule that aims to improve the H-1B program by simplifying the application process, increasing the program’s efficiency, offering more advantages and flexibilities to both petitioners and beneficiaries, and strengthening the program’s integrity measures.

    Background

    The H-1B visa program is pivotal for many sectors, particularly higher education. It permits U.S. employers to employ foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or higher or its equivalent. The program is subject to an annual limit of 65,000 visas, with an additional allocation of 20,000 visas reserved for foreign nationals who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher. Certain workers are exempt from this cap, including those at higher education institutions or affiliated nonprofit entities and nonprofit or governmental research organizations.

    Highlights of the Proposed Rule

    Prompted by challenges with the H-1B visa lottery, USCIS has prioritized a proposed rule to address the system’s integrity. The move comes after a surge in demand for H-1B visas led to the adoption of a lottery for fair distribution. However, with the fiscal year 2024 seeing a historic 758,994 registrations and over half of the candidates being entered multiple times, there was concern over potential exploitation to skew selection chances. This proposed rule is a direct response to strengthen the registration process and prevent fraud.

    Beyond addressing lottery concerns, the proposal makes critical revisions to underlying H-1B regulations. It seeks to formalize policies currently in place through guidance and tweak specific regulatory aspects.

    Amending the Definition of a “Specialty Occupation.” At present, a “specialty occupation” is identified as a job that requires unique, specialized knowledge in fields like engineering, medicine, education, business specialties, the arts, etc., and it typically mandates a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific area or its equivalent. USCIS is proposing to refine the definition of a “specialty occupation” to ensure that the required degree for such positions is directly related to the job duties. The proposal specifies that general degrees without specialized knowledge do not meet the criteria, and petitioners must prove the connection between the degree field(s) and the occupation’s duties. The rule would allow for different specific degrees to qualify for a position if each degree directly relates to the occupation’s responsibilities. For example, a bachelor’s degree in either education or chemistry could be suitable for a chemistry teacher’s position if both are relevant to the job. The changes emphasize that the mere possibility of qualifying for a position with an unrelated degree is insufficient, and specific degrees must impart highly specialized knowledge pertinent to the role.

    Amending the Criteria for Specialty Occupation Positions. USCIS is proposing updates to the criteria defining a “specialty occupation” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal includes a clarification of the term “normally,” which, in the context of a specialty occupation, indicates that a bachelor’s degree is typically, but not always, necessary for the profession. USCIS is aiming to standardize this term to reflect a type, standard, or regular pattern, reinforcing that the term “normally” does not equate to “always.”

    Extending F-1 Cap-Gap Protection. USCIS is proposing to revise the Cap-Gap provisions, which currently extend employment authorization for F-1 students awaiting H-1B visa approval until October 1 of the fiscal year for which H–1B visa classification has been requested. The Cap-Gap refers to the period between the end of an F-1 student’s Optional Practical Training (OPT) and the start of their H-1B status, which can lead to a gap in lawful status or employment authorization. The new proposal seeks to extend this period until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B visa is filed, or until the visa is approved, to better address processing delays and reduce the risk of employment authorization interruption. To be eligible, the H-1B petition must be legitimate and filed on time. This change is intended to support the U.S. in attracting and maintaining skilled international workers by providing a more reliable transition from student to professional status.

    Cap-Exempt Organizations. USCIS is redefining which employers are exempt from the H-1B visa cap. The proposed changes involve revising the definition of “nonprofit research organization” and “governmental research organization” from being “primarily engaged” in research to conducting research as a “fundamental activity.” This proposed change would enable organizations that might not focus primarily on research, but still fundamentally engage in such activities, to qualify for the exemption. Additionally, USCIS aims to accommodate beneficiaries not directly employed by a qualifying organization but who still perform essential, mission-critical work.

    Deference. USCIS is proposing to codify a policy of deference to prior adjudications of Form I-129 petitions, as delineated in the USCIS Policy Manual, mandating that officers give precedence to earlier decisions when the same parties and material facts recur. This proposal, however, includes stipulations that such deference is not required if there were material errors in the initial approval, if substantial changes in circumstances or eligibility have occurred, or if new and pertinent information emerges that could negatively influence the eligibility assessment.

    Next Steps

    While this summary captures key elements of the proposed changes, our members should be aware that the rule contains other important provisions that warrant careful review. These additional provisions could also significantly impact the H-1B visa program and its beneficiaries, and it is crucial for all interested parties to examine the proposed rule in its entirety to understand its full implications.

    USCIS is accepting public comment on its proposal through December 22, 2023. CUPA-HR is evaluating the proposed revisions and will be working with other higher education associations to submit comprehensive comments for the agency’s consideration. As USCIS moves towards finalizing the proposals within this rulemaking, potentially through one or more final rules depending on the availability of agency resources, CUPA-HR will keep its members informed of all significant updates and outcomes.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Submits Comments in Response to DOL’s Overtime Rulemaking – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Submits Comments in Response to DOL’s Overtime Rulemaking – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 2023

    On November 7, CUPA-HR, joined by 49 other higher education associations, submitted comments in response to the Department of Labor (DOL) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to update the salary threshold for the “white collar” exemptions to the FLSA overtime pay requirements from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 per year — a nearly 70% increase.* Additionally, the department proposes to automatically increase the salary level every three years.

    CUPA-HR’s comments highlight the concerns from institutions across the country and ask that the DOL consider four recommendations:

    1) The DOL Should Not Update the Salary Threshold at This Time

    The DOL most recently updated the minimum salary threshold in 2020. CUPA-HR welcomed updates at the time, given the minimum threshold had not been successfully updated since 2004 and the level proposed in 2019 was appropriate at the time. With the most recent update becoming effective in 2020, we believe it is too soon for the DOL to move forward with another update to the minimum salary threshold.

    2) The DOL Should Lower the Proposed Minimum Salary Threshold and Account for Room and Board

    If the DOL does choose to move forward with an increase to the threshold, we believe that the proposed minimum salary threshold is too high. Updating the salary level from $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $1,158 per week ($60,209 per year) leads to a nearly 70% increase, which will result in a large number of employees being reclassified to nonexempt status. To avoid having to reclassify certain employees to nonexempt status, we ask that the DOL consider room and board as part of an employee’s total salary when considering if such employees meet the minimum salary threshold.

    3) The DOL Should Not Implement Automatic Updates to the Salary Threshold

    In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to implement automatic updates to the salary threshold that would occur every three years. CUPA-HR believes that the DOL does not have the authority to implement automatic updates under the FLSA and that automatic increases will negatively impact institutions’ budgets, their ability to provide merit-based increases, and employee morale.

    4) The DOL Should Extend the Effective Date of Any Final Rule Implementing a Higher Salary Threshold

    According to the NPRM, the DOL anticipates providing 60 days for compliance with a final rule once it is published by the agency. CUPA-HR believes 60 days is too short a timeframe to assess the impact, plan, and implement appropriate changes on campus. Instead, we ask for an effective date that is at least 180 days after any final rule is published.

    CUPA-HR’s president and chief executive officer, Andy Brantley, shared the following: “To say campuses are extremely concerned with the Department of Labor’s proposed rule increasing the minimum salary threshold to the FLSA overtime pay requirements by almost 70% would be an understatement. Employees in positions that clearly meet the three criteria to qualify as white-collar employees who are exempt from the federal overtime pay requirement will be forced into nonexempt positions.”

    In addition to submitting these comments, CUPA-HR also joined the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity’s comment letter addressing concerns with the proposed rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates relating to this proposed rule and our advocacy efforts as the department moves toward finalizing these regulations.

    * The discrepancy between our figure of $60,209 and the DOL’s preamble figure of $55,068 arises from DOL’s own projections based on anticipated wage growth. The DOL’s proposed rule is rooted in 2022 data (yielding the $55,068 figure), but a footnote in the NPRM confirms that the salary threshold will definitely change by the time the final rule is issued to reflect the most recent data. Our comments, aiming to respond to the most probable salary threshold at the time a final rule is released, references the DOL’s projected figure for Q1 2024, which is $60,209. We do not believe DOL will be able to issue a final rule before Q1 2024, so we are incorporating this projected figure into our response to the NPRM. In essence, our goal is to provide members with a clearer picture of the likely salary figure when the final rule comes into play.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — November 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 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.

    California Becomes First State to Mandate Workplace Violence Prevention Plans

    Under a new law, the first broad state law of its kind, most employers in California must now adopt workplace violence prevention plans by next summer. Before now, hospitals in California were the only group of employers required by state law to adopt workplace violence prevention plans. What specifically must be included in the plan is vague under the terms of the statute. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) will be responsible for implementation of this statute and stated that it would adopt an appropriate workplace violence set of standards for employers.

    The law will require employers to establish written plans, employee training and tracking of violent acts. Plans must be specific for each workplace and tailored to meet the individual circumstances of each setting. Commentators are looking for further guidance from Cal/OSHA on the specific details that must be covered by employer plans.

    Mandatory Time Off for Reproductive Loss

    California and Illinois are leading the way in the adoption of state laws mandating that employers guarantee time off following a miscarriage or other reproductive loss to ensure leave for grieving. The laws guarantee employees up to five days of paid or unpaid leave following a reproductive loss including miscarriage and still birth, as well as failed adoption, invitro or surrogacy. Utah has adopted a similar policy for state employees, and several cities have adopted similar statutes. Some national employers already voluntarily include reproductive losses in time-off provisions for employees.

    NLRB Lowers the Bar to Prove Joint Employer Status — May Impact Student-Athlete Cases

    The National Labor Relations Board rescinded a Trump-era regulation requiring that an alleged joint employer must have “direct and immediate” control exercised over employees to prove joint employer status. Under the new standard, if an alleged joint employer indirectly controls job terms or conditions of employment, it is a joint employer subject to NLRB jurisdiction. This will have immediate application to the ongoing dispute as to whether the NCAA and athletic conferences are joint employers of student-athletes, as they exercise control over rules that student-athletes must adhere to.

    This also may affect the NLRB’s attempt to exert jurisdiction over student-athletes at public colleges and universities. While the NLRB has no jurisdiction over public entities, its general counsel is asserting jurisdiction over those student-athletes at public institutions based on the legal theory that the NCAA and/or the athletic conferences are joint employers.

    Student-Athlete Unionization Issue May Affect Smaller Institutions and Athletic Programs

    Two additional, separate NLRB cases are winding their way to a decision on whether student-athletes meet the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act and are therefore eligible to unionize. A West Coast case involves the NLRB issuing a complaint claiming that the University of Southern California, the NCAA, and the PAC-12 Conference are joint employers of student basketball and football players and have unlawfully refused to bargain with any union.

    An East Coast case involves a union petition filed by the Service Employees International Union to represent Dartmouth College basketball players. Dartmouth has argued that its basketball players are not employees under the NLRA, as they do not receive sports scholarships and the basketball program does not generate money for the institution.

    Commentators at Bloomberg have concluded that decisions allowing unionization of college athletes may have the most serious repercussions for smaller institutions and even small athletic programs that do not generate revenue at large institutions.

    Class Actions Proliferate Related to Washington State’s Pay Transparency Law  

    A series of 40 or so class actions filed against major employers in Washington state — including Adidas, Home Depot and Marriott — will test the reach of the new Washington state job ad and pay transparency law. The Washington state law, like similar statutes in California, Colorado and New York, requires employers to provide pay ranges and benefits information in job ads, with the aim of improving pay equity for women and employees of color.

    The Washington and California laws also provide plaintiff applicants with a private right to sue, with Washington’s statute incentivizing plaintiffs to sue. It grants plaintiffs an award of actual damages proven or $5000, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees upon proving a pay transparency violation.

    Former Women’s Basketball Coach Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

    The former head women’s basketball coach at the University of Montana has lost the sex discrimination lawsuit she filed following her termination after a poor win-loss record and serious culture complaints made by players and parents, including players threatening to leave the university if she remained as coach. The court also granted a positive inference to the university’s stated rationale for termination under the “same actor” doctrine, where in this case the same athletic director that hired the plaintiff was the person who made the decision to fire the plaintiff (Schweyen v. Univ of Montana–Missoula (2023 BL 390525, D. Mont. 9.21-cv-00138, 10/31/23)).

    The prior coach had a compiled 38-year performance of winning 75% of her games, while the plaintiff had only one winning season in the four years she served as head coach. The court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to compare herself to a men’s basketball coach who had lost team players to transfer, citing multiple federal cases that have rejected arguments that disparate treatment between men’s and women’s sports teams creates an inference of discriminatory animus under Title VII.



    Source link

  • Gender-Inclusive HR Strategies: Are You on the Right Track? – CUPA-HR

    Gender-Inclusive HR Strategies: Are You on the Right Track? – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | November 6, 2023

    This year’s Transgender Awareness Week (November 13-19) is an opportunity for HR pros to educate themselves about daily steps that make a more inclusive workplace. It’s also a good time to review strategies for inclusion for all employees, including those who are transgender, nonbinary, and agender, among other gender identities.

    Small Steps to a More Gender-Inclusive Workplace

    At this year’s CUPA-HR annual conference, Jon Humiston of Central Michigan University laid out some simple actions everyone can take to make gender inclusiveness a daily practice. They suggest:

    • Use gender-inclusive language when referring to groups of people. For example, use terms like “people” or “individuals” rather than “ladies and gentlemen.”
    • Pay attention to the assumptions you make about someone’s gender identity and expression.
    • Feel free to ask about pronouns or share your own pronouns, but don’t require people to share theirs, as they may be uncomfortable doing so.
    • Use “pronouns” rather than “preferred pronouns,” since it’s not a preference but an identity.
    • Do know that it’s OK if you make a mistake by accidentally misgendering someone. Apologize and move on. If you repeatedly make the same mistake, it might be time to practice. Consider using AI, like ChatGPT, as a conversation tool or asking a friend to be a practice buddy.

    HR’s Role in Creating a Gender-Affirming Culture

    Jon also proposed a framework for higher ed HR to review inclusion policies, focusing on transgender and nonbinary employees, but with potential benefits for all employees. Reviewing the following questions (adapted from sources such as CUPA-HR and Out & Equal toolkits) will help you identify potential gaps in your institution’s efforts to be gender inclusive.

    Policies and Procedures

    • Do you have a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, sex (or biological sex), gender identity and gender expression?
    • Do you allow employees to identify their gender outside of the gender binary?
    • Do you have a name-in-use policy or chosen-name policy that is easy to access and navigate?
    • Do systems such as software allow for gender pronouns to be included?
    • Does health insurance cover benefits for transgender and nonbinary employees?
    • Is gender-inclusive language used in internal and external materials (marketing, job ads, etc.)?
    • Are gender-inclusive bathroom locations shared with all potential employees during the interview process and all new employees?

    Programmatic Support

    • Do you have an Employee Resource Group for LGBTQIA+ employees?
    • Do you have LGBTQIA+ safe-zone training available for all employees?

    Visibility

    • Does your institution publicly show its support of LGBTQIA+ communities during Pride Month, National Coming Out Day, National Day of Silence, etc.?
    • Does your institution publicly address hate and bias crimes that occur, or have a plan for doing so?
    • Does your institution have a presence at local LGBTQIA+ pride events?

    Making the Case for Gender Inclusion

    Policies that support LGBTQIA+ employees benefit all employees.

    For example, flexible work arrangements are desired by two-thirds of the higher ed workforce, yet most campus staff members must work on-site. For employees experiencing misgendering at work or in public, a day working from home might provide them the respite they need from the exhaustion of being misgendered or experiencing gender dysphoria.

    Both job seekers and current employees want their workplace cultures to be inclusive. According to a recent Workhuman study, 72 percent of employees see this as somewhat or very important to them. Inclusive cultures also promote creativity and innovation and may reduce absenteeism.

    Preventing workplace discrimination and harassment is also a matter of regulatory compliance. The EEOC recently published new proposed guidance on preventing workplace harassment, including several examples of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

    The Future of Gender Inclusion

    The makeup of the higher ed workplace won’t look the same in the years to come. The share of Americans who know someone whose gender differs from the sex they were assigned at birth continues to grow, with 44 percent of Americans saying they know someone who is trans and 20 percent saying they know someone who is nonbinary.

    If a major overhaul of institutional inclusion policies isn’t something you’re in a position to initiate, Jon suggests networking with your colleagues at other institutions to provide support, personally recognizing national days of awareness or remembrance, and encouraging allyship.

    Additional Resources

    Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace (CUPA-HR Toolkit)

    Assessing LGBTQI+ Inclusion in Your Workplace (Out & Equal Toolkit)

    A Guide to Gender Identity Terms

    What’s Your Pronoun? Strategies for Inclusion in the Workplace



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released its final rule amending the standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The rule replaces the board’s 2020 final rule on the same issue and greatly expands joint employer status under the NLRA.

    The final rule establishes joint employer status of two or more employers if they “share or co-determine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment,” such as wages, benefits and other compensation; work and scheduling; hiring and discharge; discipline; workplace health and safety; supervision; and assignment and work rules. Today’s final rule finds that either indirect control or reserved control may stand alone as sufficient for finding that a joint employer relationship exists. The final rule specifically states that an entity may be considered a joint employer if it possesses the authority to control one or more essential terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that authority is exercised, or if it exercises the power to indirectly control one or more terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that power is exercised directly. This is a departure from the 2020 rule, which found that an entity must exercise substantial direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment to be considered a joint employer.

    Joint employment has recently been a focal point for higher ed institutions as disputes around the worker classification of student-athletes continue. Last year, an NLRB regional office announced it would be pursuing a complaint by a student-athlete advocacy group that filed an unfair labor practice charge against that the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA, alleging that the three entities are joint employers who violated the NLRA by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ non-employees.” The case is set to be heard by an administrative law judge in November, but a final decision could take years to come to fruition.

    This final rule could have significant implications for private institutions, as they fall under the NLRB’s jurisdiction. Public institutions are not impacted by this rulemaking, as the NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public entities.

    CUPA-HR is assessing the final rule and will provide members with more information as it becomes available.



    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published new proposed guidance for employees and employers on navigating and preventing workplace harassment. “Enforced Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” highlights and upholds existing federal employment discrimination laws and precedence, such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

    The Updated Guidance

    The proposed enforcement guidance provides an overview and examples of situations that would constitute workplace harassment. Of particular interest are provisions included that reflect new and existing protections from harassment under federal laws and precedence, as well as emerging issues surrounding the workforce. The guidance discusses the following notable provisions for consideration:

    • Pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. The guidance states that sex-based harassment includes harassment revolving around pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, all of which are protected under federal laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the recently enacted PWFA.
    • Sexual orientation and gender identity. The guidance provides several examples of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which is considered sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.
    • Virtual and online harassment. The guidance states that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile environment, providing examples such as harassing comments made during remote calls or discriminatory imagery being visible in an employee’s workspace while in a work-related video call. Additionally, the guidance provides examples of conduct on social media outside of work-related contexts that may contribute to hostile work environments if such conduct impacts the workplace.

    In the proposed guidance, the EEOC reminds stakeholders that the final guidance will “not have the force and effect of law” and that such guidance is “not meant to bind the public in any way.” Instead, the document “is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Commission policies.”

    Looking Ahead

    The proposed guidance is open for public comments through November 1, 2023. Once the comment period closes, the EEOC will review all feedback they received and make changes to address the comments prior to issuing a final rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this EEOC guidance, as well as new and existing laws falling under the EEOC’s jurisdiction.



    Source link