Tag: CUPAHR

  • Retirement Plan Changes and Workplace Protections for Pregnant Workers Included in Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Bill – CUPA-HR

    Retirement Plan Changes and Workplace Protections for Pregnant Workers Included in Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Bill – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2023

    On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the $1.7 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (omnibus bill) to fund the federal government through fiscal year 2023 (FY 2023). Given the “must-pass” nature of the bill, the omnibus bill also served as a vehicle for policy unrelated to government funding that was unlikely to pass as a standalone bill in Congress. Below outlines some of the highlights that will impact higher education generally and human resources specifically.

    SECURE 2.0

    Notably, the new law includes changes to the access and use of individual retirement funds. Provisions from a package of retirement-related bills, referred to as SECURE 2.0, were ultimately included in the final omnibus package. Specifically, the new law included the following provisions, in addition to others not listed here:

    • Automatic 401(k) and 403(b) plan enrollment: The new law requires employers to automatically enroll employees into newly created 401(k) and 403(b) retirement plans at a rate between 3 to 10 percent of eligible wages. Employees will then have the option to opt out of the enrollment. Employers with 10 or fewer employees and companies in business for less than three years are excluded from this requirement.
    • Expanded eligibility for part-time employees: The law requires employers to provide the option to participate in employer retirement plans for part-time employees who work between 500 and 999 hours for at least two consecutive years (lowered from three consecutive years previously required).
    • Emergency expenses and savings accounts: Employees would be allowed to withdraw up to $1,000 from retirement accounts for qualified emergency expenses without facing early withdrawal penalties if the worker is under 59.5 years old. Additionally, the law allows employers to offer employees an emergency savings account through payroll deductions for amounts up to $2,500.
    • Matching employer contributions for student loan payments: Employers will be allowed to make contributions to their company retirement plan on behalf of employees who are paying student loans and are not contributing to a retirement account as a result.
    • Roth treatment of employer contributions: The new law grants employers the option to amend their retirement plans and allow employees to choose their employer’s matching and non-elective contributions to be made as Roth contributions.
    • Multiple Employer and Pooled Employer Plans for 403(b) plans: The new law allows employers to participate in Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs) and Pooled Employer Plans (PEPs) for 403(b) plans.

    The final law also included several changes to individual activity with respect to their retirement plans, including an increase to the “catch-up” contribution limits of up to $10,000 for older retirement savers and an increase to the age an individual is required to begin taking minimum distributions from their retirement accounts, which is now effective at age 73 and effective at age 75 effective in 2033.

    Workplace Protections for Pregnant Workers

    Additionally, Congress was able to agree on the inclusion of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers in the omnibus bill.

    Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    Passed by the House in May 2021, the PWFA specifically declares that it is an unlawful employment practice for employers with 15 or more employees to do any of the following:

    • fail to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations of such employees unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an entity’s business operation;
    • require a qualified employee affected by such condition to accept an accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived at through an interactive process;
    • deny employment opportunities based on the need of the entity to make such reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee;
    • require such employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided; or
    • take adverse action in terms, conditions or privileges of employment against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations.

    Though the bill enjoyed bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, Republicans opposed bringing the bill to a Senate vote without the inclusion of a religious exemption for employers. Such exemptions were provided in the omnibus bill’s version of the PWFA, ultimately helping lead to its passage.

    PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

    The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act passed the House of Representatives in October 2021 with bipartisan support. The bill aims to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds upon existing protections in the 2010 Breaktime for Nursing Mothers Act by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. In the new law, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act is expanded to include salaried employees exempt from overtime pay requirements under the FLSA as well as other categories of employees currently exempt from such protections, such as teachers, nurses and farmworkers. It also clarifies that break time provided under this bill is considered compensable hours worked so long as the worker is not completely relieved of duty during such breaks, and it ensures remedies for nursing mothers for employer violations of the bill.

    Similar to the PWFA, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act did not reach a Senate floor vote, leaving the omnibus bills as one of the last options for passage before the 117th Congress’s term expired.

    Immigration Provisions

    Due to the situation at the southern border, the new law excluded any major immigration overhauls, such as the Equal Access to Green cards for Legal Employment (EAGLE) Act, which would have addressed the immigration visa backlog and made changes to the H-1B visa program. Additionally, protections for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and Dreamers that have been threatened by recent court decisions were not included in the final bill enacted into law.

    Despite the exclusion of important reforms, the new law reauthorized several expiring immigration programs that are already utilized by institutions of higher education, including additional funds for the E-Verify program.

    Higher Education Funding

    Several provisions were included in the omnibus package that will increase funding for a variety of higher education programs. Notably, the bill includes a $500 increase to the maximum Pell Grant a recipient can receive, raising the total to $7,395 for the 2023-24 award year. Additionally, the bill included funding increases for Federal Work-Study grants, Title III and V programs, Postsecondary Student Success Grants, and the TRIO and GEAR UP programs.

    CUPA-HR will continue to analyze the provisions included in the FY 2023 funding bill and will keep members apprised of any additional noteworthy provisions included in the law.



    Source link

  • Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda Targets Release Dates for DOL’s Overtime Proposal and Final Title IX Rule – CUPA-HR

    Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda Targets Release Dates for DOL’s Overtime Proposal and Final Title IX Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2023

    On January 4, 2023, the Biden administration released the anticipated Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda), providing the public with a detailed glimpse into the regulatory and deregulatory activities under development across approximately 67 federal departments, agencies and commissions. Agendas are generally released in the fall and spring and set target dates for each agency and sub-agency’s regulatory actions for the coming year.

    After completing a thorough review of the items included in the Regulatory Agenda, CUPA-HR put together the following list of significant proposed actions for members.

    Department of Labor

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

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is now planning to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to address changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s overtime pay requirements in May 2023. The WHD first announced their intention to move forward with the NPRM in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda, stating its goal “to update the salary level requirement of the section 13(a)(1) exemption [under the FLSA].”

    As a refresher, changes to overtime pay requirements have been implemented through regulations under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In May 2016, the Obama administration’s DOL issued a final rule increasing the salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 per year and imposed automatic updates to the threshold every three years. However, court challenges prevented the rule from taking effect and it was permanently enjoined in September 2017. After the Trump administration started the rulemaking process anew, the DOL issued a new final rule in September 2019 raising the minimum salary level required for exemption from $23,660 annually to $35,568 annually. This final rule went into effect January 1, 2020 and remains in effect today.

    Since the regulation’s reintroduction in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda, CUPA-HR has participated in several DOL listening sessions and has sent letters to the DOL expressing concerns with the timing of the rulemaking. Specifically, our concerns highlight the ongoing challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the continued reliance on hybrid and remote work, a historically tight labor market in the U.S. and the effects of inflation on the workforce.

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

    In May 2023, the WHD anticipates issuing a final rule to amend the current method for determining independent contractor status for workers.

    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; and
    • the degree of control exercised or retained by the employer control.

    Employment and Training Administration — Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States 

    In September 2023, the DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) plans to issue an NPRM to establish “a new wage methodology for setting prevailing wage levels for H-1B/H-1B1/E-3 and PERM programs consistent with the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” The proposal will likely amend the Trump administration’s final rule that was scheduled to take effect on November 14, 2022, but was subsequently vacated by a federal court in June 2021. The new proposal will take into consideration the feedback it received in response to a Request for Information (RFI) on data and methods for determining prevailing wage levels “to ensure fair wages and strengthen protections for foreign and U.S. workers.”

    CUPA-HR filed comments in opposition to the Trump administration’s regulations on the issue and in response to the Biden administration’s RFI.

    National Labor Relations Board

    Joint Employer

    In August 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) plans to release its anticipated final rule to amend “the standard for determining whether two employers, as defined under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), are a joint employer under the NLRA.”

    On September 7, 2022, the NLRB issued an NPRM on the joint employer standard. The NPRM 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. According to the NLRB’s press release, the Board “proposes to consider both direct evidence of control and evidence of reserved and/or indirect control over these essential terms and conditions of employment when analyzing joint-employer status.”

    Department of Education

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

    In May 2023, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plans to release its highly anticipated Title IX final rule. The rulemaking would finalize the June 2022 NPRM to rollback and replace the Trump administration’s 2020 regulations, specifically with respect to its grievance procedures, 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 tried to bring attention to the possible impact the proposed regulations could have on how higher education institutions address employment discrimination. The Department of Education received over 200,000 comments in response to the NPRM, which they must review prior to issuing a final rule to implement their changes.

    In addition to the Title IX rulemaking, the OCR also announced its intention to issue an NPRM to address Title IX protections as it relates to athletics programs at educational institutions. The Department of Education announced its intention to pursue a separate rulemaking to address transgender students participation in athletic programs at institutions of higher education and such protections afforded to them under Title IX after the topic was frequently discussed in the media and in Congress in 2022. According to the Regulatory Agenda, the NPRM was set to be released in December 2022, but it has not yet been released.

    Department of Homeland Security

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Optional Alternative to the Physical Examination Associated With Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) 

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to issue a final rule in May 2023 that would finalize the agency’s proposed rule aiming to “revise employment eligibility verification regulations to allow the Secretary to authorize alternative document examination procedures in certain circumstances or with respect to certain employers.”

    On August 18, 2022, the DHS published its NPRM on 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. If finalized, the proposed rulemaking would create a framework under which the Secretary of Homeland Security could allow alternative options for verifying those documents, such as reviewing the documents via video, fax, or email rather than directly allowing employers and agents to use such alternative examination options. According to the NPRM, the Secretary would be authorized to implement the alternative examination options in a pilot program if they determine such procedures would offer an equivalent level of security, as a temporary measure to address a public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or a national emergency declared by the President.

    CUPA-HR filed comments in response to the DHS NPRM in October 2022. The comments were supportive of the Department moving forward with the NPRM, but cautioned against requiring secondary, in-person review of I-9 documents after virtual inspection and once an employee is in-person on a regular and consistent basis; issuing training for document detection and/or anti-discrimination training that may be offered at a high cost without proper vetting, and requiring institutions to be enrolled in E-Verify to participate in the alternative options.

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

    In October 2023, the DHS’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) plans to release an NPRM to “amend its regulations governing H-1B specialty occupation workers and F-1 students who are the beneficiaries of timely filed H-1B cap-subject petitions.” The NPRM will specifically propose to “revise the regulations relating to ‘employer-employee relationship’ and provide flexibility for start-up entrepreneurs; implement new requirements and guidelines for site visits including in connection with petitions filed by H-1B dependent employers whose basic business information cannot be validated through commercially available data; provide flexibility on the employment start date listed on the petition (in limited circumstances); address ‘cap-gap’ issues; bolster the H-1B registration process to reduce the possibility of misuse and fraud in the H-1B registration system, and clarify the requirement that an amended or new petition be filed where there are material changes, including by streamlining notification requirements relating to certain worksite changes, among other provisions.”

    Department of Agriculture

    Agriculture Acquisition Regulation: Internal Policy and Procedural Updates and Technical Changes

    In May 2023, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to re-propose an NPRM that was previously issued in February 2022 and included controversial provisions that would require federal contractors on projects procured by the agency to certify their compliance with dozens of federal and state labor laws and executive orders.

    In the February NPRM, the USDA provided only 32 days for stakeholder comment submissions on the proposal. CUPA-HR filed an extension request with the department asking for an additional 90 days to “evaluate the NPRM’s impact on [members’] research missions and collect the information needed in order to provide thoughtful and accurate input to the USDA,” as well as official comments that were pulled from 2012 comments CUPA-HR submitted with the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).

    While it is unclear whether the May NPRM will include the blacklisting language again, the abstract of the re-proposal states that “the new proposed rule would be responsive to the comments received on our February 2022 proposal.”



    Source link

  • In Case You Missed Them – Inspiring Reads of 2022 and Can’t-Miss CUPA-HR Resources – CUPA-HR

    In Case You Missed Them – Inspiring Reads of 2022 and Can’t-Miss CUPA-HR Resources – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 4, 2023

    Throughout the year, the Higher Ed Workplace Blog and Higher Ed HR Magazine feature HR innovations and success stories from the CUPA-HR community. In case you missed them, we’ve listed several great blog posts and articles of 2022 that will leave you feeling inspired and ready to take action at your institution.

    The Higher Ed Workplace Blog

    Higher Ed HR Magazine

    • While there’s a time and place to maintain a more serious demeanor, there’s a case to be made for incorporating humor into the workplace — especially for HR professionals who are often viewed as the enforcers of an organization. Read how HR can use the powerful tool of humor to its advantage: Dear HR, It’s OK to Laugh — Incorporating Humor Into the HR Workplace
    • Kansas State University’s Human Capital Services (HCS) knew their remote work policy was in need of a major overhaul. When COVID-19 entered the scene, HCS had to overcome multiple obstacles and a major time crunch to build a comprehensive remote work program and strategy for faculty and staff. Learn how they did it in their article A Consultative Approach: Kansas State University’s Framework for HR Success
    • Did you know that 47 percent of chief academic officers (CAOs) have been in their position three years or less? While there is limited data regarding why CAOs consider staying or leaving their positions, CUPA-HR CEO Andy Brantley conducted interviews with 13 CAOs to gain a deeper understanding of what motivates them to stay or leave. Read the full article Chief Academic Officer Transition: Opportunity, Chaos or Something In Between?
    • Many institutions collect data from their employees on engagement, climate and satisfaction, but don’t always take specific steps to improve those factors. Learn best practices for developing an engagement, satisfaction, or climate survey that will produce actionable results: Employee Engagement/Satisfaction/Climate Assessment: Producing Actionable Results

    Don’t Miss These CUPA-HR Resources!

    Okay, so you’re feeling inspired after reading these HR success stories, but now you’re wondering how you can get to work at your institution. These CUPA-HR resources can help you take that next step!

    • Understanding Higher Education is an e-learning series designed to help all employees be more effective in their roles by developing a deeper understanding of institutional structure and culture. Take Course 1 now.
    • Knowledge Center toolkits are designed with higher ed in mind. Toolkits are added and updated often, so stop by often to see what’s new.
    • From new research publications to annual workforce data, the Research Center is the central hub for all things CUPA-HR research.



    Source link

  • NLRB Region Files Complaint Against the NCAA, Pac-12 and the University of Southern California – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Region Files Complaint Against the NCAA, Pac-12 and the University of Southern California – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 21, 2022

    On December 15, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)’s Region 31 announced it will pursue a complaint against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the Pac-12 Conference and the University of Southern California (USC) for violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by misclassifying student-athletes as non-employees, unless the matter is settled. On February 8, the National College Players Association filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the region alleging that USC; the University of California, Los Angeles; the Pac-12 Conference; and the NCAA are “joint employers” who violated the NLRA by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ non-employees.”

    Region 31 is part of the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel, which is responsible for receiving charges from employees, unions or employers that allege violations of the NLRA. The region decides whether to issue a complaint on charges it receives. If the region does not issue a complaint, the matter is generally closed. If the region decides to file a complaint, however, the case is litigated before an administrative law judge.

    Region 31’s complaint is the latest development regarding the employment status of student-athletes. The National College Players Association’s February 8 charge followed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s memorandum issued last September in which she argues that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and are therefore afforded all statutory protections as prescribed under the law.

    The region’s decision in response to the February ULP charge means the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference and USC can either settle or litigate the case. A final ruling could take years to come to fruition, however, as both parties in the case could appeal the decisions made by the administrative law judge to the five-member NLRB. The NLRB’s decision can be appealed to federal appellate courts  and from there all the way up to the Supreme Court.

    The news of the region’s complaint follows the announcement earlier in the day that Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker would be the NCAA’s next president in March after his last term in office expires in January. Baker, a Republican, is known for his work to build bipartisan consensus on policy in Massachusetts, which the NCAA may recognize as a strength as they continue to engage Congress on other issues related to student-athlete compensation. It is unclear what, if any, impact this will have on the ULP charges.

    CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of this case and others involving student-athlete employment classification that may emerge in the future.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – December 2022 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – December 2022 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 13, 2022

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

    University Wins Dismissal of “Deliberate Indifference” to Sex Harassment Claims on Statute of Limitations Grounds 

    A federal district court dismissed 12 counts of alleged indifference to sex harassment brought by six Jane Does, five of whom are current or former students and one of whom is a current professor. The case involves allegations against a male graduate student in French language studies who was arrested for rape of a student at another college in 2018. It is alleged that the university did not act on sex harassment allegations of inappropriate touching and “raunchy” texts following the incident at the other college.

    The graduate student allegedly raped Doe #1 in September 2020, and the university suspended him in November 2020 following an investigation for sexual harassment, endangerment and disorderly conduct. The graduate student fled the country for France in December 2020 and has not returned. The graduate student was indicted for rape stemming from the 2018 alleged assault in December 2021.

    The federal district court judge dismissed all the allegations on statute of limitations grounds (Doe #1 et al v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College et al ( M.D. La. No. 21-cv-00564, 11/3/22)). Louisiana has the shortest statute of limitations in the country at one year and the judge concluded that the majority of the claims were time barred, granting plaintiffs the ability to amend two of the 12 claims and refile them.

    Athletic Director Applicant Loses Reverse Discrimination Claim on the Basis of Interview Performance

    A white athletic director applicant who claimed superior qualifications for a senior athletic director position failed to show that the stated reason for his rejection (poor interview performance) in favor of a minority applicant was pretextual. The plaintiff was a long-time athletic director in the South Bend Indiana School district at the time he applied for a broader and more senior athletic director position. The judge ruled that while the plaintiff may have been more qualified “on paper alone” by a comparison of resumes with the minority applicant who was chosen for the job, the employer showed that a comparison of resumes was not the sole criteria for job selection (Groves v. South Bend Community School Corporation (2022 BL 347215, 7th Cir. No. 21-03336, 10/1922)).

    The judge went on to recognize that the minority applicant performed much better during his interview and convinced the interviewer that he would be much better able to mend the strained relationship the school district had with the State Athletic Association. The judge further observed that during the interview, the plaintiff stressed his experience in firing coaches and this was not helpful in the mind of the interviewer with regard to the State Athletic Association. The judge concluded that the facts supported the conclusion that interview performance was not a pretext to commit race discrimination. The judge’s conclusion was affirmed by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana).

    State of Florida Appeals Federal Judge’s Decision Blocking the Florida Law Restricting Employer Anti-Bias Training

    The state of Florida has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, asking the appellate court to reverse a federal judge’s decision that barred enforcement of the controversial law’s provisions, which prohibited employers in the state of Florida from promoting various sex- and race-based anti-bias concepts as part of employee training.

    The federal district trial judge issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of much of the law based on a conclusion that it violated employers’ First Amendment free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. The state of Florida argued in its appeal that the statute does not restrict employer free speech, rather it blocks employer conduct “conscripting employees against their will into the audience as a condition of their employment,” (Honeyfund.com Inc et al v. DeSantis et al (Case No. 13135, 11th Cir.)).

    The federal trial judge had concluded that Florida state lawmakers wrote a law that attempts to squelch viewpoints on race and sex bias that they do not like. CUPA-HR will follow this litigation as it develops.

    Department of Labor Proposes Self-Correction Program for Retirement Plans With Late Participant Contributions and Loan Repayments

    The Department of Labor is proposing a new self-correction component under its Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program (VFCP) to allow plan administrators to self-correct certain plan violations without the need to file a formal application and no action request. Under the proposed rule, the plan would report the correction through an online portal. The VFCP allows plans to self-correct certain Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations and avoid civil penalties by identifying and correcting certain plan design and implementation errors. Under the proposal, plans with late participant contributions or loan repayments could use this alternative to self-correct these violations.

    Under the proposed rule, the self-correction must be made within 180 days of the withholding or receipt of funds and the lost earnings must not exceed $1,000. Publication of the proposed rule is expected to be made in late November/early December, and comments must be submitted within 60 days of publication of the proposed rule.

    Terminated Softball Coach Sues for First Amendment Speech and Religious Discrimination Allegedly Related to Her Offer to Adopt a Student’s Baby

    A former assistant softball coach has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that her former university discriminated against her in the exercise of her free speech rights and religious beliefs when she was discharged after she offered to adopt a student’s baby and refused to reveal the identity of the student (Wiggins v. Idaho State University et al (D. Idaho No. 22-cv-00474, complaint filed 11/17/22)).

    The complaint alleges that the university violated the former coach’s First Amendment speech and exercise of religion rights by “coercing” the coach to convince the birth mother to disclose the pregnancy and birth to her parents and to withdraw her offer to adopt the baby. The complaint alleges that the university discharged the coach after she refused to disclose the name of the birth mother to the athletic director and dean of students so they could contact the birth mother‘s parents. The plaintiff alleges that her offer to adopt the baby was an “exercise of” her Christian faith. The plaintiff also alleges that the loss of employment forced her to sell her home and move her family to Texas.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Sends Letter to Congress Asking for DACA Protections – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Sends Letter to Congress Asking for DACA Protections – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 22, 2022

    On November 17, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education (ACE) and over 60 other higher education associations in sending a letter to House of Representatives and Senate leadership urging Congress to pass permanent protections for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program after recent court decisions have left the status of the program in limbo.

    On October 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously upheld a 2021 ruling by the lower Court in the Southern District of Texas that enjoined the DACA program and vacated the 2012 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum that originally established the program. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court’s finding that the promulgation and enforcement of the DACA memorandum violated the Administrative Procedure Act but noted that the Biden administration had finalized a new DACA regulation in August, leading the Appeals Court to send the case back to the Texas District Court to consider the legality of the August rulemaking. On October 14, however, the Texas District Court ruled against the final rule, arguing that the existing injunction blocking the 2012 memorandum also covered the new final rule.

    As a result of these rulings, the DHS is blocked from accepting new applications for the DACA program, but the agency is permitted to continue renewing existing protections to current DACA beneficiaries. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a statement in response to the Texas Court’s decision saying “It is clearer than ever that only the passage of legislation will give full protection and a well-deserved path to citizenship for DACA recipients. I urge Congress to swiftly pass legislation to provide permanent protection to the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who call the United States home.”

    ACE’s letter states the urgency with which Congress needs to act to ensure protections are granted to DACA recipients. The letter specifically asks Congress to pass legislation to provide DACA protections to current and future beneficiaries before the 117th Congress ends January 3, 2023.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the status of the DACA program.



    Source link

  • 4 Considerations for Using Salary Data to Inform Compensation Decisions – CUPA-HR

    4 Considerations for Using Salary Data to Inform Compensation Decisions – CUPA-HR

    by Missy Kline | November 15, 2022

    Editor’s note: This blog post, originally published in April 2019, has been updated with additional resources and related content.

    Salary benchmarking is not one-size-fits-all — especially when you’re looking at groups as varied as administrators, professionals, staff and faculty on a college or university campus that is unique in its combination of Carnegie class, affiliation, regional location and mission. The question, then, is how to tailor your benchmarking efforts to take these variables into account and choose data that is appropriate to your unique needs.

    Here are four considerations to help you make the best use of salary data for compensation budget planning for your faculty and staff:

    1) Which institutions should your institution’s salaries be benchmarked against? Making the right comparisons — using position-specific data and carefully selected peers — can make all the difference when planning salaries that will make your institution competitive in the labor market. When you use CUPA-HR’s DataOnDemand, you can narrow down peer institutions by one or several institution-level criteria such as affiliation (public, private indephttp://cupahr.org/surveys/dataondemand/endent or private religious), Carnegie classification, enrollment size, geographic region, total expenses or other characteristics. Remember, balance is key: a larger comparison group gets you more robust data for comparison, but you must also make sure you are comparing to the right types of institutions that make sense for your goals.

    2) Not all faculty are the same. Tenure track faculty, non-tenure track teaching faculty, non-tenure track research faculty and adjunct faculty may each require unique compensation strategies, as do faculty members from different disciplines and ranks. Will the same salary increase help retain both tenured and non-tenured faculty? Does collective bargaining impact salary targets for some, but not all, of these faculty sub-groups? Are there unique, fast-growing, or in-demand departments/disciplines that require a separate strategy?

    3) Keep in mind that administrator salaries are broadly competitive. Like faculty, many administrative positions in higher ed are competitive at a national level. Often, institutions seek administrators with experience at other institutions of a similar size or mission, and with this experience and mobility comes an expectation of a competitive salary. As higher ed moves toward a “business model” where innovative leadership strategies are displacing more traditional shared governance models, finding administrators with the appropriate skills and expertise is becoming increasingly competitive, not only within higher education but sometimes against the broader executive employment market.

    4) Employment competition varies for staff and professionals. Many non-exempt staff are hired from within local labor markets, and therefore other institutions or companies in your state or local Metropolitan Statistical Area might be a better salary comparison than a nationwide set of peer institutions. Exempt or professional staff, however, may be more limited to competition from the higher ed sector, perhaps on a state or regional level. In addition, changes brought about by the pandemic (e.g., remote work opportunities, a desire to relocate) have made many professional positions more globally competitive. Are your institution’s salaries for these employees appropriately scoped for the market in which you need to compete?

     

    Additional Articles and Resources

    How One College Is Using Salary Data to Ensure Pay Equity and Market-Par Compensation

    Compensation Programs/Plans, Executive Compensation in Higher Ed, Equal Pay Act (CUPA-HR Toolkits)

    Working in a Fish Bowl: How One Community College System Navigated a Compensation Study in a Transparent Environment (Higher Ed HR Magazine)



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – November 2022 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – November 2022 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 8, 2022

    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.

    EEOC Disavows Publicly-Expressed Views of Former General Counsel Regarding Abortion Travel Issues 

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) took the rare step of publicly disavowing the views expressed by its former general counsel who was appointed during the Trump administration and replaced during the Biden administration. The EEOC stated on October 31, 2022 that its former general counsel expressed her personal views, not that of the agency, when she warned that employers providing travel assistance to employees seeking an abortion but not for other procedures might be sued by the EEOC. Nonetheless, this is a developing area of the law and counsel should be consulted on these issues.

    Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument Over Continuation of Affirmative Action In College Admissions

    The Supreme Court heard oral argument over the continuation of Affirmative Action in college admissions on October 31, 2022 in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions (SSFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC). The first major Supreme Court decision involving Affirmative Action in college admissions occurred in 1978 in University of California v. Bakke. In Bakke, a divided Supreme Court approved the University of California’s Affirmative Action plan with four justices ruling in favor of the plan and four justices ruling that the Affirmative Action plan violated the constitution. The remaining solo opinion of Justice Lewis Powell coupled with the four votes in favor of Affirmative Action became the precedent. Justice Powell concluded that a race-conscious admissions program could theoretically satisfy constitutional strict scrutiny by being narrowly tailored to promote a diverse student body.

    In 2003, a majority of the Supreme Court endorsed Justice Powell’s solo opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor added in the majority opinion that the Court expects that such policies will no longer be necessary in 25 years.

    The Supreme Court set aside two hours to hear oral argument in two lawsuits brought by the SFFA, an anti-Affirmative Action group, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The SFFA wants the Supreme Court to overturn Justice Powell’s solo opinion in the Bakke case and end consideration of race in college admissions. The group argues among other things that current Affirmative Actions policies routinely discriminate against Asian Americans who do not receive racial preferences. Both colleges deny that Affirmative Action policies discriminate against Asian Americans.

    To complicate matters further, both cases were coupled for oral argument, but were uncoupled and heard separately because Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself for the Harvard case because of past work on Harvard’s Board of Overseers.

    Supreme Court Considers Long-Standing Preemption of State Laws Barring Employer State-Based Claims of Destruction of Property During Labor Disputes

    The Supreme Court will also reconsider this term its 60-year-old decision in San Diego Building Trades v. Garmon (commonly referred to as the Garmon Preemption Doctrine), in a case in which an employer is seeking to sue a teamsters local union alleging common law state claims of intentional destruction of property during a labor dispute and commencement of a strike (Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 174 (US No. 21-1449)). The Supreme Court ruled in the Garmon case that the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts and therefore prohibits all state court lawsuits against unions, concluding that an employer’s sole remedy is subject to the provisions of the NLRA, and that sole remedy for relief is up to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

    In the case at hand, the Washington State Supreme Court dismissed an employer’s common law lawsuit against Teamster Local Union No. 174 for intentional destruction of property holding that under Garmon preemption the employer’s sole remedy is before the NLRB, which does not grant property damages to employers so harmed. The employer in the case alleged that its teamster union drivers returned the employers ready mix concrete trucks fully loaded with concrete to the yard prior to leaving on strike with the concrete in the trucks ready to harden and therefore destroyed the trucks. The teamsters claimed that they left the trucks running so that they could be unloaded safely.

    Some commentators conclude that if the Supreme Court alters Garmon broadly and allows such lawsuits to proceed, it could trigger a new and effective employer weapon in holding union’s liable for economic consequences of strikes and other actions taken during labor disputes. Those commentators also point out that if the Supreme Court broadly limits preemption, it could lead to conservative-leaning states to enact legislation restricting union conduct during strikes.

    California Joins Growing List of States Expanding Paid Leave Benefits

    California’s recent enactment of paid leave protections requiring employers to provide employees with paid leave to care for individuals who are not legal relatives joins the growing list of states regulating this area of employee benefits. So far, 11 states and the District of Columbia have enacted paid leave programs. Five of those states (Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington) allow employees to use those benefits to take care of non-relatives designated as “akin to family.”

    Nationwide, this is leading to a unique patchwork of requirements depending on where the employee is employed. Research should be conducted in your local jurisdiction to guide your institution on the breadth and application of possible city and/or state requirements. In addition, remote work in another state may also alter which state’s laws applies.

    U.S. Court of Appeals to Address Whether Sovereign Immunity Exempts State University From Federal Whistleblower Wrongful Discharge Claims

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina) will address whether Maryland state sovereign immunity applies to Morgan State University and Maryland State University in a case involving federal whistleblower wrongful discharge claims by the university’s former director of broadcast operations (Williams v. Morgan State University (4th Cir., Case no 21-01918, 10/13/22)).

    The plaintiff complained that the university mishandled a debate between Baltimore mayoral candidates and that she was ultimately discharged because she claimed that the mishandling may have violated the Federal Hatch Act and Federal Communications Commission regulations. The federal trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims, holding that while Maryland had waived sovereign immunity with respect to state tort claims, it did not do so regarding federal claims. The Court of Appeals has taken the unusual position of asking the Maryland State Court of Appeals whether the state has waived sovereign immunity with regard to federal tort claims.

    The plaintiff also added a federal whistleblower claim that the university’s dean and other professors were intentionally inflating expense numbers to federal and state agencies to “pad the university’s funding.”

    NLRB Returns to In-Person Manual Union Elections to Replace Mail-In Ballots Mandated During COVID-19 Pandemic

    In-person voting at employer premises in NLRB-supervised union elections is returning as the primary method of voting as the NLRB modifies the rules that it enacted during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which lead to a great increase in mail-in voting. Nearly 75 percent of the 3,185 NLRB-supervised elections, which were conducted since the start of 2020 during the pandemic, were conducted by mail according to Bloomberg BNA. Unions prevailed in 76 percent of the mail-in elections as opposed to prevailing in 68 percent of the in-person elections. Employers generally prefer in-person manual elections because of the NLRB rules, which ensure secrecy, avoid electioneering around voting areas and arguably prevent voter fraud coercion.

    Employer groups argue that there is greater turn out during in-person manual voting. Unions claim that employers have an unfair advantage at in-person, manual voting because the election takes place on the employer’s “home turf.”



    Source link

  • Three Take-Home Messages From the 2022 Annual Conference – CUPA-HR

    Three Take-Home Messages From the 2022 Annual Conference – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 2, 2022

    Thank you to all who attended the CUPA-HR Annual Conference and Expo in person and virtually last week! It was wonderful to welcome new (300+ first-timers!) and familiar faces and to learn about successful projects and initiatives from higher ed peers at institutions across the country. 

    For those who weren’t able to attend, here’s some food for thought from our three outstanding keynote speakers:

    • Stand-Out Leadership — Opening keynote Sara Ross applied her passion for brain science to a key element of stand-out leadership: accountability. Ross explained that employees would rather have leaders who hold themselves accountable for their actions than perfect leaders. One way HR professionals can be stand-out leaders and hold themselves accountable is by using Ross’s SLOW strategy when responding to critical situations on campus. The SLOW strategy helps us respond in a way that is reflective of the positive impact we want to make in our roles as HR leaders.
      • S – Stop. Intercept your emotional reaction. Our brains are designed to process emotions first and logic second. By pausing and checking in with your emotions before responding to a situation, you prevent adding more fuel to the fire.
      •  L – Language. Check your body language. No really, look in the mirror! Pay attention to how you are presenting yourself. People are honed in on your body language, so you must make sure your body language is aligned with your message.
      • O – Oxygenate. Consciously slow your breathing to push back on your fight-or-flight instincts. Research shows that slowing down for as little as two minutes and deepening your breath can decrease the amount of cortisol in your system by up to 20 percent, which is essential when responding to an already stressful situation.
      • W – Wonder. Step outside your perspective and challenge yourself by thinking from someone else’s perspective. This simple practice helps reset our sensitivity and tap into empathy.
    • How to Citizen — Sunday’s keynote speaker, Baratunde Thurston, spoke about how racial injustices during the summer of 2020 motivated him to launch his podcast, “How To Citizen With Baratunde.” He challenged the audience to think about the word “citizen” as a verb rather than a noun. “Citizen” as a noun can carry divisive and exclusive undertones, but as a verb, it gives us something to do to improve our society. According to Thurston, there are four principles that serve as the foundation of how to “citizen.” The four principles are showing up and participating; investing in relationships with yourself and others; understanding power and what we give our power to; and to do all of these things to benefit our collective selves, not just our individual selves. What specific ways can you begin to “citizen” at your institution?
    • Reinvent HR — The take-home message from David Ulrich’s energizing talk about reinventing HR is that HR is not about HR, but about creating value for stakeholders inside and outside the organization (students, family, employers, community, alumni) so that our institutions and communities can succeed. Here are five ways HR can lead in this area: 1) Empower the next generation by making sure people feel better about themselves following their interaction with a leader, 2) Shape the future by establishing a compelling vision/mission, 3) Engage today’s talent by living the Es (empathy, emotion, energy, experience), 4) Make things happen by delivering on promises and creating a positive work environment, and 5) Invest in yourself so you can invest in others.

    Don’t Forget! Conference attendees can watch the sessions they missed or re-watch their favorites on demand. Recordings of our keynotes and livestreamed concurrent sessions are available for viewing in the desktop conference platform and the app.

    Be sure to save the dates for our Spring Conference, April 23-25 in Boston, and our 2023 Annual Conference, taking place October 1-3 in New Orleans! Registration details coming soon.



    Source link

  • Labor and Employment Policy Updates — October 2022 – CUPA-HR

    Labor and Employment Policy Updates — October 2022 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 22, 2022

    As the 2022 midterm election nears, Congress has turned its focus to campaigning and essentially halted legislative action until after the election. Despite the lack of activity from Congress, federal agencies have continued to push forward with anticipated regulatory actions in the labor and employment policy area. This blog post details some of the regulatory activity CUPA-HR is currently monitoring, as well as a stalled nomination for a top position at the Department of Labor (DOL).

    NLRB Joint Employer Rule

    On September 7, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the joint employer standard. Generally speaking, the NPRM proposes to expand joint employer status to entities with indirect or reserved control over essential terms and conditions of employment.

    The NPRM 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, assignment and work rules. According to the NLRB’s press release, the Board “proposes to consider both direct evidence of control and evidence of reserved and/or indirect control over these essential terms and conditions of employment when analyzing joint-employer status.”

    Comments in response to the proposal were originally due November 7, but after stakeholders requested an extension to the filing deadline the Board extended the comment period to December 7.

    Independent Contractor Rule

    On October 13, the DOL published an NPRM to rescind the current method for determining independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 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; and
    • The degree of control exercised or retained by the employer control.

    Comments in response to the NPRM are due November 28.

    Jessica Looman Nomination

    On September 13, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Jessica Looman to serve as Administrator of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD). Looman was officially nominated for the position in July 2022, months after Biden’s previous nominee David Weil failed to receive 50 votes to clear the Senate floor and become the WHD Administrator.

    Looman has not yet had a committee vote to move her nomination to a full Senate floor vote. It is unclear when a Senate HELP vote will take place, but is likely to come after the election in November. Regardless of the timing on a vote, Looman continues to carry out the WHD’s rulemaking agenda in her current role as the Principal Deputy Administrator.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates relating to the rulemakings and nomination discussed above.



    Source link