Tag: CUPAHR

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

    HR and the Courts — September 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 13, 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.

    Unionization Increases to Record Levels, Largely Driven by Graduate Students and Medical Interns

    Unionization in the first six months of 2023 reached near record levels, surpassing last year’s numbers, which were driven by Starbucks employees’ organization drives. In the first six months of 2023, over 58,000 new workers were unionized, almost 15,000 more than last year’s significant levels. The size of new bargaining units has grown, with new units of 500 or more employees growing by 59% over last year. In the first six months of 2023, unions won 95% of elections in large units of over 500 employees compared to 84% in the first six months of 2022.

    According to a Bloomberg Law report, this increase coincides with a growth in graduate assistant and medical intern organizing. There have been union organization elections in 17 units involving graduate students and medical interns in the first six months of 2023. This is the highest level of activity in the sector since the 1990s.

    Court of Appeals Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim by Fire Chief Who Was Terminated After Attending a Religious Event on “City Time”

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) rejected a former fire chief’s allegation of religious discrimination after he attended a church-sponsored Christian leadership event in place of attending a non-religious leadership training program he was asked to attend (Hittle v. City of Stockton, California (2023 BL 268076, 9th Cir. 22-15485, 8/4/23)). The court concluded that the fire chief’s supervisors were legitimately concerned about the constitutional implications of a city official attending a church-sponsored event.

    The fire chief claimed, as evidence of religious discrimination, that city supervisors questioned whether his attendance at the event was part of a “Christian Coalition.” He further alleged that the supervisors questioned whether he was part of a “Christian clique.” The court rejected the fire chief’s arguments that this questioning amounted to religious bias against Christians. The court concluded that the questioning was related to the report they received on his attendance at the church-sponsored event. The court noted that the supervisors did not use derogatory terms to express their own views. The case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, and we will follow developments as they unfold.

    University Wins Dismissal of Federal Sex Harassment Lawsuit for Failure of Professor to File a Timely Underlying Charge of Sex Harassment With the EEOC

    Pennsylvania State University won a dismissal of a male ex-professor’s federal sex harassment lawsuit alleging a female professor’s intolerable sex harassment forced him to resign. The Federal Court concluded that the male professor never filed a timely charge with the EEOC (Nassry v. Pennsylvania State University (M.D. Pa. 23-cv-00148, 8/8/23)). The plaintiff professor argued he was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because he attempted to resolve the matter internally as opposed to “overburdening the EEOC.”

    The court commented that while the plaintiff’s conduct was “commendable,” the court was unable to locate any case where a plaintiff was bold enough to offer such a reason to support equitable tolling. The court dismissed the federal case, holding that there was no way to conclude the plaintiff professor was precluded from filing in a timely manner with the EEOC due to inequitable circumstances. The court dismissed the related state claims without prejudice as there was no requirement that the state claims be filed with the EEOC.

    Professor’s First Amendment Retaliatory-Discharge Case Over Refusal to Comply With COVID-19 Health Regulations Allowed to Move to Discovery

    A former University of Maine marketing professor who was discharged and lost tenure after refusing to comply with COVID-19 health regulations on the ground that they lacked sufficient scientific evidentiary support is allowed to move forward with discovery. The university’s motion to dismiss was denied (Griffin V. University of Maine System (D. Me. No. 2:22-cv-00212, 8/16/23)).

    The court held “for now” the professor is allowed to conduct discovery to flush out evidence of whether or not the actions which led to the termination were actually protected free speech. The court concluded that the actual free speech question will be decided after more facts are unearthed.

    U.S. Court of Appeals Reverses Employer-Friendly “Ultimate Employment Decision” Restriction on Actionable Title VII Complaints

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) reversed the long standing, 27-year-old precedent restricting Title VII complaints to those only affecting an “ultimate employment decision.” The employer-friendly precedent allowed the courts to dismiss Title VII complaints not rising to the level of promotion, hiring, firing and the like. The 5th Circuit now joins the 6th Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) and the D.C. Circuit (covering Washington, D.C.) in holding that a broader range of employment decisions involving discrimination are subject to Title VII jurisdiction.

    The 5th Circuit case involved a Texas detention center which had a policy of allowing only male employees to have the weekend off. The 5th Circuit reversed its prior ruling dismissing the case and allowed the case to proceed. This reversed the old “ultimate employment decision” precedent from being the standard as to whether a discrimination case is subject to Title VII jurisdiction.

    Union Reps Can Join OSHA Inspectors Under Newly Revised Regulations

    The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed revised regulations that would allow union representatives to accompany OSHA inspectors on inspections. The regulations, which were first proposed during the Obama administration, were stalled by an adverse court order and then dropped during the Trump administration.

    The proposed rule would drop OSHA’s current reference to safety engineers and industrial hygienists as approved employee reps who could accompany the inspector. The new rule would allow the OSHA inspector to approve any person “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of a site visit. Among the professions that could be approved are attorneys, translators and worker advocacy group reps. The public comment period on these proposed regulations will run through October 30, 2023.



    Source link

  • The Top Predictor of Higher Ed Employee Retention May Surprise You – CUPA-HR

    The Top Predictor of Higher Ed Employee Retention May Surprise You – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 12, 2023

    In 2022-23, turnover of higher ed employees was the highest in five years. A new report from CUPA-HR explores the issue of higher ed employee retention and the factors that impact retention.

    The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey analyzed data from 4,782 higher ed employees — administrators, professionals and non-exempt staff, with faculty excluded — from 529 institutions. It found that 33% of higher ed employees surveyed answered they were “very likely” or “likely” to look for new employment opportunities in the next year. More than half (56%) of employees are at least somewhat likely to search for a new job in the coming year.

    Top Reasons Higher Ed Employees Are Looking for a New Job

    According to the findings, respondents say that pay is the number one reason they’re looking for a new job. Other influential reasons are an opportunity to work remotely, desire for a promotion or more responsibility, and the need for a more flexible work schedule.

    But while pay is the top concern mentioned by employees, retention challenges are more complex.

    Strongest Predictors of Retention

    Digging deeper into the data, the strongest predictors of retention are factors related to job satisfaction and well-being. Only 58% of higher ed employees are generally satisfied with their jobs. Of the 16 aspects of job satisfaction and well-being the survey measured, the three that have the most impact on retention are:

    • Recognition for Contributions
    • Being Valued by Others at Work
    • Having a Sense of Belonging

    Only 59% of respondents say they receive regular verbal recognition for doing good work. The good news is that programs, training and policies that increase employee satisfaction in these areas can make a significant impact on retention without necessarily breaking the budget.

    Three Things You Can Do

    Employees are not necessarily planning to flee higher ed. Most job seekers will be looking within higher ed, and nearly half will be looking within their own institution, indicating that it’s not too late to implement retention strategies. Here are three things you can do to assess and address job satisfaction:

    1. Read the Report. The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey provides not only data but also a model for understanding higher ed retention. (Looking for an overview of report findings? Check out our press release.)
    2. Explore CUPA-HR Resources. Here are several that focus on aspects of job satisfaction:
    1. Plan Next Steps. Share the report or press release with leaders on your campus. Determine areas where your institution could strengthen career development and implement training to increase job satisfaction.

     



    Source link

  • Department of Labor Proposes New Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Department of Labor Proposes New Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    On August 30, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a new proposed update to the salary threshold for the “white collar” exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime pay requirements.

    DOL proposes raising the minimum salary threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $55,068 — a nearly 55% increase. It also raises the salary level for the Highly Compensated Exemption (HCE) to $143,988 from its current level of $107,432 (a 34% increase). The proposal does not make any changes to the duties requirements. DOL does, however, propose automatically updating the threshold every three years by tying the threshold to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region. For more information, DOL issued a FAQ document addressing the changes in the proposed rule.

    DOL first announced their intention to move forward with the proposal in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda and set a target date for its release in April 2022. However, CUPA-HR, along with other higher education organizations and hundreds of concerned stakeholders, expressed concerns with the timing of the rulemaking and encouraged DOL to hold stakeholder meetings prior to releasing the anticipated overtime Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). In a recent letter, CUPA-HR joined other associations in calling for the department to postpone or abandon the anticipated overtime rulemaking, citing concerns with supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, inflation, and shifting workplace dynamics.

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on September 8, allowing the public 60 days to submit comments. CUPA-HR plans to file an extension request with the agency. We will also continue evaluating the current proposal and work with members to prepare comments to submit on behalf of the higher education community. Furthermore, an extended session of the CUPA-HR Washington Update on September 21 will delve into the nuances of these proposed changes and their ramifications on campus.

    Register for the Upcoming Webinar

    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Protections – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Protections – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 28, 2023

    On August 7, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a proposed rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The proposed rule provides a framework for how the EEOC plans to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA.

    In December, 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. 

    Purpose and Definitions 

    Under the proposed rule, the EEOC states that employers are required to “provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.” 

    Most definitions included in the EEOC’s proposed regulations follow the definitions provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed rule, however, expands upon the definition of a “qualified employee or applicant” to include an employee or applicant who cannot perform an essential function of the job so long as they meet the following criteria: 

    • Any inability to perform an essential function is for a temporary period 
    • The essential function could be performed in the near future 
    • The inability to perform the essential function can be reasonably accommodated 

    The rule continues by defining “temporary” as the need to suspend one or more essential functions if “lasting for a limited time, not permanent, and may extend beyond ‘in the near future.’” Accordingly, “in the near future” is defined to extend to 40 weeks from the start of the temporary suspension of an essential function.  

    Additionally, the terms “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” include a non-exhaustive list of examples of conditions that fall within the statute, including current or past pregnancy, potential pregnancy, lactation, use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, endometriosis, miscarriage, stillbirth, and having or choosing not to have an abortion. The proposed rule specifies that employees and applicants do not have to specify the condition on the list or use medical terms to describe a condition to receive an accommodation.  

    Reasonable Accommodations 

    The proposed rule states that requests for an accommodation should both identify the limitation and indicate the need for an adjustment or change at work. The rule adopts the interactive process for approving and adopting reasonable accommodations for employees or applicants as implemented under the ADA, meaning employers and the qualified employee or applicant can work together to reach an agreement on an appropriate accommodation. 

    The proposed rule also offers a non-exhaustive list of examples of reasonable accommodations that may be agreed upon during the interactive process. These include frequent breaks, schedule changes, paid and unpaid leave, parking accommodations, modifying the work environment to make existing facilities accessible, job restructuring and other examples.  

    Additionally, the proposed rule introduces “simple modifications,” which are presumed to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose an undue burden in almost all cases. The four simple modifications proposed are: 

    • Allowing employees to carry water and drink, as needed, in the work area 
    • Allowing employees additional restroom breaks 
    • Allowing employees to sit or stand when needed 
    • Allowing employees breaks, as needed, to eat and drink 

    Supporting Documentation 

    The proposed rule states that covered employers are not required to seek documentation to prove the medical condition or approve an accommodation, further stating that the employer can only request documentation if it is reasonable in order to determine whether to grant an accommodation for the employee or applicant in question. Under the regulations, “reasonable documentation” is that which describes or confirms the physical condition; that it is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions; and that a change or adjustment at work is needed for that reason. Examples of situations where requesting documentation may be determined to be unreasonable include when the limitation and need for an accommodation are obvious; when the employee has already provided sufficient documentation; when the accommodation is one of the four “simple modifications”; and when the accommodation is needed for lactation. 

    Remedies and Enforcement 

    The proposed rule establishes the applicable enforcement mechanisms and remedies available to employees and others covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for qualified employees and applicants covered under the PWFA. The rule also proposes several anti-retaliation and anti-coercion provisions to the list of protections granted to those covered by the PWFA. 

    Next Steps 

    The EEOC’s proposed rule marks the agency’s first step toward finalizing PWFA regulations. Although the timing is uncertain, the EEOC will likely aim to issue the final regulations by December 29 — the deadline Congress gave the agency to finalize a rulemaking to implement the law. Notably, however, the PWFA went into effect on June 27, meaning the EEOC is now accepting violation charges stemming from PWFA violations without having a final rule implemented. 

    The EEOC invites interested stakeholders to submit comments in response to the proposed rule by October 11. Comments will be considered by the agency before issuing its final rule for the PWFA.  

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any activity relating to the PWFA regulations.



    Source link

  • NATA Provides Insights Into the Collegiate Athletic Trainer Labor Crisis – CUPA-HR

    NATA Provides Insights Into the Collegiate Athletic Trainer Labor Crisis – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 23, 2023

    Editor’s note: The information in this post came from the National Athletic Trainers’ Association’s white paper “The Collegiate Athletic Trainer Labor Crisis,” which includes a checklist and a library of resources to assist collegiate ATs and leaders in evaluating recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement practices.

    Like much of higher ed, collegiate athletics is struggling with a labor crisis due to the post-pandemic “Great Resignation.” Particularly in the area of athletic training, colleges and universities are finding it more and more difficult to attract and retain talent. Given the role and value ATs and their sports medicine departments have in reducing risk for their athletic department and institution, it is critical for leaders to understand and address the current labor crisis.

    To identify some reasons for this labor challenge, the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) Intercollegiate Council for Sports Medicine (ICSM) in collaboration with the NATA Compensation Task Force surveyed more than 1,120 collegiate athletic trainers (ATs) across the country. Pay, organizational culture, burnout and increased work responsibilities were the themes that emerged.

    Findings

    Salary remains the most important factor for collegiate ATs as they evaluate employment options.
    As the AT profession continues to see increasing employment opportunities within hospitals, sports medicine clinics, industrial settings, physician offices, and military and municipality services, the market is becoming more competitive. The collegiate AT average salary of $54,000 remains below the overall athletic trainer average salary of $61,000.

    Workload is a cause for concern. More than half of the survey respondents indicated they were caring for more than 100 student-athletes, and 65 percent said they had received additional responsibilities from their supervisor without an increase in compensation. Due to workload, respondents expressed concerns around being able to provide student-athletes with the attention they deserve, being able to devote time to preventative care and/or corrective exercise, and an inability to provide one-on-one rehab time to student-athletes. Research suggests that ATs with very high patient loads perceive an inability to meet the demands of their athletic administrators and coaches, which leads to increased emotional exhaustion and burnout. The survey found that only 12 percent of respondents have been employed in collegiate athletics beyond 10 years.

    Organizational culture plays a large role in attracting and retaining ATs. The survey found that collegiate ATs expect a positive work culture that promotes student-athlete health and safety, an understanding of ATs responsibilities, appropriate time demands, independent medical care and a  collaborative team environment. Additionally, respondents indicated a desire for formal onboarding and mentorship programs specific to the AT position — while 60 percent of respondents indicated such a program would be favorable, only a third had any formal onboarding with their current position.

    How Can Institutions Respond?

    Institutions that are slow to respond to the athletic trainer labor crisis will continue to have challenges hiring and retaining ATs. To this end, NATA has outlined several steps institutions can take to address the challenges around attracting and retaining talent in the athletic trainer field:

    • Conduct a salary and benefits review of your institution’s ATs, with particular attention to different AT employment opportunities within your local area; additional provisions that could be offered (sign-on bonuses and/or retention bonuses); market rates and compa-ratios; and compensation for increased roles, responsibilities and job duties.
    • Audit your institution’s AT job descriptions to ensure they are reflective of AT duties and responsibilities.
    • Offer more work flexibility, support services and work-life balance resources for ATs.
    • Create AT-specific mentorship and onboarding programs.

    For more on the collegiate athletic trainer labor shortage and strategies leaders can use to attract, recruit and retain these employees in an increasingly competitive environment, read NATA’s white paper, The Collegiate Athletic Trainer Labor Crisis: A Data-Driven Guide Outlining the Current Collegiate Workplace Environment and Strategies to Improve Workplace Engagement.



    Source link

  • DHS Announces Proposed Pilot Program for Non-E-Verify Employers to Use Remote I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    DHS Announces Proposed Pilot Program for Non-E-Verify Employers to Use Remote I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 9, 2023

    On August 3, 2023, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on a potential pilot program to allow employers not enrolled in E-Verify to harness remote examination procedures for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    Background

    DHS’s recent actions are built upon a series of moves aimed at modernizing and making more flexible the employment verification process. On July 25, 2023, the DHS rolled out a final rule enabling the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize optional alternative examination practices for employers when inspecting an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents, as mandated by the Form I-9. The rule creates a framework under which DHS may implement permanent flexibilities under specified conditions, start pilot procedures with respect to the examination of documents, or react to crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Alongside the final rule, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register authorizing a remote document examination procedure for employers who are participants in good standing in E-Verify and announced it would be disclosing details in the near future about a pilot program to a broader category of businesses.

    Key Highlights of the Proposed Non-E-Verify Remote Document Examination Pilot 

    DHS’s proposal primarily revolves around the following points:

    • Purpose: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intends to gauge the security impact of remote verification compared to traditional in-person examination of the Form I99. This involves evaluating potential consequences like error rates, fraud and discriminatory practices.
    • Pilot Procedure: The new pilot program would mirror the already authorized alternative method for E-Verify employers, including aspects such as remote document inspection, document retention and anti-discrimination measures.
    • Eligibility: The pilot program is open to most employers unless they have more than 500 employees. However, E-Verify employers are excluded since DHS has already greenlit an alternative for them.
    • Application Process: Interested employers must fill out the draft application form, which DHS has made available online. This form captures details like company information, terms of participation, participant obligations, and more.
    • Information Collection: Employers wishing to join the pilot would be required to complete the formal application linked above. ICE would periodically seek data from these employers, such as the number of new hires or how many employees asked for a physical inspection.
    • Documentation: Participating companies must electronically store clear copies of all supporting documents provided by individuals for the Form I-9. They might also be required to undertake mandatory trainings for detecting fraudulent documents and preventing discrimination.
    • Onsite/Hybrid Employees: Companies might face restrictions or a set timeframe for onsite or hybrid employees, dictating when they must physically check the Form I-9 after the initial remote assessment.
    • Audits and Investigations: All employers, including pilot participants, are liable for audits and evaluations. DHS plans to contrast data from these assessments to discern any systemic differences between the new method and the traditional one.

    What’s Next: Seeking Public Comments by October 2 

    DHS is actively seeking feedback from the public regarding the proposed pilot and the draft application form. The department encourages stakeholders to consider and provide insights on the following points:

    • Practical Utility: Assess if the proposed information requirement is vital for the agency’s proper functioning and whether the data collected will be practically useful.
    • Accuracy and Validity: Analyze the agency’s estimation of the information collection’s burden, ensuring the methods and assumptions are valid.
    • Enhance Information Quality: Offer suggestions to improve the clarity, utility and overall quality of the data collected.
    • Minimize Collection Burden: Propose ways to ease the data collection process for respondents, exploring technological solutions such as electronic submissions.

    In light of this, CUPA-HR plans to carefully evaluate the notice and associated application. Based on its review, CUPA-HR is considering submitting comments to provide valuable insights to DHS. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates regarding this proposed pilot program and other changes to Form I-9 alternative examination procedures.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — August 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 9, 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.

    Tenured Professor Loses First Amendment Retaliation Claim Related to “Offensive” Blog Posted Months Before the Adverse Action 

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) dismissed a North Carolina State University professor’s First Amendment retaliatory discrimination claim following the removal of the professor from a key university program. The professor claimed that his removal stemmed from his critical  “woke joke” blog post. His blog stated that the Association for the Study of Higher Education’s conference had “… moved from focusing on general post-secondary research to social justice.” He claimed that the comment was protected speech and could best be characterized as a “woke joke.”

    The Court of Appeals dismissed his claim holding that the blog post was published 10 months before his removal from the program area and eight months after the department head had emailed him stating that the blog had “generated controversy on social media.” The appeals court ruled 2 to 1 that “temporal proximity” between the alleged speech and the adverse action was lacking and therefore the case must be dismissed (Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University (4th Cir. No. 22-01712, 7/6/23)).

    Court Decisions on Telework Disability Accommodation Changing in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Federal judges are less likely to decide in favor of employers rejecting telework accommodation in disability cases in the aftermath of the COVID-19 epidemic. The employer win rate in cases denying a disability telework accommodation has dropped to 60% in the aftermath of COVID-19 compared to a 70% win rate during the two-year period prior to the pandemic, according to statistics cited by Bloomberg Industry Group (DLR 7/6/23).

    Federal judges are now more likely to consider telework as a reasonable accommodation in certain disability cases as a result of the widespread use of telework during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Mandatory Paid Family and Medical Leave Becoming More Common Among State and Local Jurisdictions

    Twelve states, plus the District of Columbia, have enacted mandatory paid medical and family leave for workers within their jurisdictions. While the form of the mandate varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, workers are increasingly being granted by these statutes guaranteed paid time off to care for their own serious medical condition, a newborn or newly adopted child, or a family member’s major medical condition. In addition, according to Bloomberg DLR, Michigan and New Mexico appear likely to adopt mandatory paid-leave programs in the near future. It is important to check your state and local jurisdictions for developments in this area.

    Professor of Iranian Decent Entitled to Title VII Jury Trial Over Allegations That His Contract Non-Renewal Was Based on National Origin Prejudice by His Turkish Supervisor 

    A federal district court judge denied a summary judgement motion and held that a tenure-track art professor of Iranian descent was entitled to a jury trial under Title VII regarding his allegations that his supervisor denied renewal of his contract because of the supervisor’s anti-Iranian, Turkish background. The judge concluded that the plaintiff stated a claim of national origin discrimination under Title VII and was therefore entitled to a jury trial over those allegations and allegations that the university denied the plaintiff access to legal counsel and misstated his legal position (Shams v. Delta State University (N.D. Miss. No. 22-cv-00035, 7/11/23)).

    The plaintiff alleged that there is tension between Iranians like himself and Turks like his supervisor because the two countries “… share a contentious border and not much else.” The plaintiff also alleges that he was replaced by an art professor of Turkish background who was contacted for the position before the non-renewal of his contract.

    Former Professor’s First Amendment Retaliation Claims Related to His Termination After Publishing an Article on “Racial IQ Gap” Dismissed Against University, But Survives Against University Officials

    A former Cleveland State University professor can pursue some of his First Amendment retaliation claims, after he was terminated following publication of an article that advanced a theory that genetics cause a “Racial IQ Gap” between White and Black Americans. The federal district court hearing the case dismissed the complaint against the university on sovereign immunity grounds. However, the court let some of the complaint proceed against some university officials, at least through discovery. After completion of discovery, the court will rule on whether individual university officials are covered by the university’s sovereign immunity (Pesta v. Cleveland State University ( 2023 BL 242086, N.D. Ohio, No. 1-23-cv-00546, 7/14/23)).

    The controversial article was subject to outside criticism that the professor unethically misused NIH Data on studies of racial differences to reach his conclusions. The university stated that the professor was terminated for ethical lapses and for violating its academic and integrity standards. The professor claims that he was fired because of university viewpoint discrimination against the conclusions in his article in violation of the First Amendment. We will follow developments as this case unfolds.

    New Jersey Equal Pay for Temps Law Is First to Mandate Joint Liability of Employers Along With Temp Agencies

    New Jersey employers will face expanded liability along with temp agencies under a law which mandates that temp employees receive pay and benefits equal to comparable full-time employees employed by the employer. The law is the first to impose joint-employer liability along with temp agencies employed by the employer and goes into effect on August 5, 2023, according to Bloomberg DLR, 8/4/23. While other states — including California, Illinois and Massachusetts — have temporary-worker bill-of-rights laws, New Jersey is the first to impose joint-employer liability on the actual employer employing the temp agency.

    The New Jersey law imposes the requirement that temp employees in the state receive wages and benefits comparable to those of similarly situated full-time employees.



    Source link

  • ALP 2023: Another Successful Association Leadership Program Is in the Books – CUPA-HR

    ALP 2023: Another Successful Association Leadership Program Is in the Books – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 26, 2023

    This blog post was contributed by Jennifer Addleman, member of CUPA-HR’s Southern Region board of directors and HR director at Rollins College.

    And that’s a wrap on CUPA-HR’s 2023 Association Leadership Program (ALP) in Omaha, Nebraska! On July 13-14, leaders from CUPA-HR’s national, regional and chapter boards, as well as CUPA-HR’s corporate partners, gathered to discuss higher ed HR challenges, share successes, make connections and build relationships. I was fortunate to attend as a representative from the Southern Region board, and my mind is still reeling from two full days of content and networking with talented HR leaders from across the country. Here are some of my takeaways:

    • Lead with positivity, start with a win, and end with gratitude.
    • So much is happening on the regulatory and legislative front that will affect higher ed and the labor and employment landscape, and CUPA-HR is serving as the voice of higher ed on these issues with lawmakers.
    • The CUPA-HR Knowledge Center continues to be a go-to resource for all things higher ed HR. In addition to HR toolkits that are constantly being updated or added, you’ll also find DEI resources, e-learning courses, a job description index, CUPA-HR’s Higher Ed HR Magazine and more. If you haven’t checked out the Knowledge Center lately, I encourage you to do so!
    • We in higher ed HR are doing important work — what we do matters, and we are impacting lives.
    • CUPA-HR continues to do valuable work in data collection and research — our data is the platinum standard! Learn more about CUPA-HR’s research in the Research Center (find the link in the menu on the CUPA-HR home page).
    • We must continue to make mental health a priority. As HR practitioners, we often prioritize taking care of others, but we should not be ashamed to take care of ourselves first! Find resources in the Mental Health and Health and Well-Being Knowledge Center toolkits.
    • You can walk to Iowa from Omaha! Who knew!

    Sharing some quality time with higher ed HR peers from across the country, commiserating about and discussing strategies to overcome our biggest challenges, and meeting new people and making new connections is what CUPA-HR’s Association Leadership Program is all about. If you’re considering exploring volunteer leadership opportunities within the association, do it! You won’t regret it — in fact, you’re guaranteed to learn and grow, and have a great time doing it!



    Source link

  • DOL Accelerates Regulatory Actions – CUPA-HR

    DOL Accelerates Regulatory Actions – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 25, 2023

    The Department of Labor (DOL) has accelerated release of proposed and final regulations as the agency strives to meet the self-imposed deadlines in the Biden administration’s Spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda). Multiple DOL sub-agencies are issuing rules and proposed rules in July and August on independent contractor classification, overtime pay exemptions, workplace inspections, and workplace injuries.

    Overtime Pay Exemptions

    As previously reported, on July 12, DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) sent to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a proposed rule on “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees” (1235-AA39) for review. OIRA is part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is charged with reviewing the costs and benefits of regulatory actions. In the Regulatory Agenda, DOL targeted August for release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on overtime exemptions. OIRA review signals DOL is trying to publish the NPRM at or close to that deadline.

    While the content of the proposed rule has not yet been released to the public, we expect that the proposal will increase the minimum salary an individual must be paid to qualify as a bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employee exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

    WHD first announced that it planned to “update the salary level requirement of the section 13(a)(1) exemption” to overtime pay requirements within the FLSA in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda (125-AA39). In early 2022, CUPA-HR and other employer groups requested that DOL hold stakeholder meetings before issuing any regulations. DOL held these meetings, and employer groups urged DOL to delay moving forward with changes to the overtime rule, which DOL did until July 12 when it sent the proposal to OIRA.

    While OIRA may take up to 90 days to conduct a review, the agency generally completes review within 30 to 60 days. In the meantime, as with any proposed rule under review, OIRA is accepting input from stakeholders who would like to voice their potential concerns with the rulemaking. CUPA-HR will be requesting a meeting to reiterate the objections made to the rule in letters that CUPA-HR and other associations have sent to DOL since the introduction of the proposal in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda. Most recently, CUPA-HR and 103 other signatories sent a letter to DOL in May 2023, requesting the abandonment or, at minimum, postponement of the anticipated overtime regulation due to the supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, inflationary pressures, and shifting workforce dynamics that are already prevalent and could be exacerbated by the rulemaking. CUPA-HR has also participated in several DOL listening sessions on the matter.

    Independent Contractor Classification 

    WHD announced in the Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda that it plans to release the final rule for “Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act” (1235-AA43) in August. While DOL has not sent the rule to OIRA yet, we expect it will do so any day now. WHD published the original NPRM on October 13, 2022, and allowed the public to provide comments on the proposal until December 13, 2022. Although DOL has not released the text of the final rule, we expect it will be substantially similar to the NPRM and will replace the existing Trump-era rule (1235-AA34) issued on January 7, 2021.

    In evaluating whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor under the FLSA, the courts and DOL have long considered the following five factors: the opportunity for profit or loss; investment and permanency; the degree of control held by the employer over the worker; whether the work is an integral part of the employer’s business; and skill and initiative. In the Trump-era 2021 rule, DOL concluded two of the five identified factors — the nature and degree of control over the worker and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss — are most probative in the analysis and should be considered “core factors” given additional weight. DOL asserted that this streamlined approach was consistent with how courts had historically applied the five-factor test. The 2021 rule also explained that whether the work is “integral to the employer’s business” depends on whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production and not whether the work is critical, necessary or central to the employer’s business, as the latter is subjective, confusing and difficult to apply.

    DOL now asserts that the 2021 rule does not fully adhere to the text and purpose of the FLSA and thus intends to replace it with the new method outlined in the NPRM. This new method would shift away from the core factors test to a test in which the factors are all weighted equally and given full consideration. In addition, the DOL is reversing its position on the interpretations and clarifications of factors in the 2021 rule, including the aforementioned clarification on the integral factor.

    Many in the business community filed comments opposing the NPRM and supporting the 2021 rule, and we expect that some of those same groups will challenge DOL’s final rule in court if it is substantially similar to the proposal.

    Workplace Walkarounds 

    On July 17, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sent the “Worker Walkaround Representative Designation Process” (1218-AD45) rule to OIRA for review. As mentioned above, this is an initial step in releasing the proposed rule, the target date for which was June. Again, we are not certain how long the OIRA review process will take, and OIRA is allowing for meetings with individuals and organizations interested in this NPRM.

    Under current rules, a union may designate an employee to accompany an OSHA inspector during their facility walkaround. According to the Regulatory Agenda, this NPRM would allow an employee representative to accompany the OSHA inspector, regardless of whether that representative is a direct employee of the company subject to inspection.

    Workplace Injuries and Illnesses 

    On July 17, OSHA released the text of the “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (1218-AD40) final rule, which was published in the Federal Register on July 21. DOL had projected in the Regulatory Agenda that it would release the rule in June 2023.

    The rule amends OSHA’s occupational injury and illness recordkeeping requirements to mandate that certain employers electronically submit specified workplace injury and illness reports to OSHA on an annual basis. More specifically, the new rule will require employers with 100 or more employees in certain industries to electronically submit content from their OSHA Forms 300 and 301 once a year. To be included in the requirements, industries must meet certain criteria that establish them as high hazard. Meanwhile, employers with 20 or more employees in designated industries will continue to be required to electronically submit content from their OSHA Form 300A annually. Finally, employers with 250 or more employees in any industry will need to continue submitting content from their Form 300A on an annual basis.

    OSHA plans to publicize the data from the annual electronic submissions. The data would be inputted to a searchable database after removing anything that could help identify the individuals in the reports. Employers will not be required to submit to OSHA details from Forms 300 and 301 related to employees’ names or addresses, the healthcare professionals involved, or the facilities where treatments were provided. In addition to these reporting requirements, the rule also updates the NAICS codes used by OSHA to select which industries should be included in these reporting obligations.

    CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of further details concerning the DOL’s advancement of its Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda, along with opportunities for advocacy.



    Source link

  • DHS Announces Final Rule Permitting Alternative Options for Form I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    DHS Announces Final Rule Permitting Alternative Options for Form I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 24, 2023

    On July 21, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a final rule permitting the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize optional alternative examination practices for employers when reviewing an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents required by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The rule creates a framework under which DHS may implement permanent flexibilities under specified conditions, start pilot procedures with respect to the examination of documents, or react to crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Simultaneously, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register authorizing an alternative document examination procedure. This provides employers who are participants in good standing in E-Verify with the option to remotely examine their employees’ identity and employment authorization documents via a live video interaction.

    Background

    Under current law, employers are required to physically examine an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents within three business days after an individual’s first day of employment. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, DHS introduced temporary flexibilities in March 2020, enabling employers to remotely review these documents. This virtual inspection was to be succeeded by a physical examination within three business days once normal operations resumed. These flexibilities, extended multiple times, are set to expire on July 31, 2023.

    Due to the success of temporary changes to document verification procedures implemented at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, DHS issued a Request for Public Input (RPI) on October 26, 2021, concerning remote document examination. This move initiated a discussion on whether these leniencies should be extended permanently. After examining the comments responding to the RPI, DHS proposed a framework on August 18, 2022, empowering the Secretary to extend these flexibilities. CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the RPI (see here) and proposal (see here) encouraging DHS to move forward expediently and ensure that a remote review process remains available following the end of the COVID-19 Flexibilities.

    Details of the Alternative Procedure

    From August 1, 2023, eligible employers can start using the alternative procedure as outlined in the Federal Register notice. The conditions include: (1) restricting participation to E-Verify participants in good standing; (2) broadening document retention requirements to include clear and legible copies of all Form I-9 documents; (3) requiring E-Verify training on fraud awareness and antidiscrimination; and (4) holding a live video interaction after the employee transmits a copy of the document(s) to the employer.

    Employers participating in E-Verify, who created a case for employees whose documents were examined during the COVID-19 flexibility period (March 20, 2020 to July 31, 2023), can opt for the new alternative procedure from August 1, 2023 to satisfy the required physical examination of the employee’s documents for that Form I-9. Conversely, employers not enrolled in E-Verify during the flexibility period must complete a physical examination in-person by August 30, 2023 as outlined in the Agency’s May 4 announcement.

    What’s Next

    Looking ahead, DHS continues to expand its efforts to streamline employment verification procedures. As part of this endeavor, the department is gearing up to roll out a pilot program offering a remote examination option not just to E-Verify-enrolled employers but also to a broader category of businesses. This pilot program is expected to inform decisions about a comprehensive expansion of the remote examination option.

    Simultaneously, DHS is preparing to issue a new edition of Form I-9. Dated August 1, 2023, the new form will become the standard for all employers starting November 1, 2023. Until then, employers can still use the previous edition dated October 21, 2019, through October 31, 2023. It’s important to note, however, that if an employer chooses to utilize the 2019 edition in conjunction with the new alternative remote inspection procedure, they must mark “alternative procedure” in the Additional Information field in Section 2 of Form I-9.

    According to DHS, more details about the new Form I-9 and the pilot program will be disclosed in the near future. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor these developments and keep members apprised as they are announced.

     



    Source link