Tag: CUPAHR

  • President Biden Nominates Kalpana Kotagal to Serve as EEOC Commissioner – CUPA-HR

    President Biden Nominates Kalpana Kotagal to Serve as EEOC Commissioner – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 11, 2022

    On April 1, President Biden announced his intention to nominate Kalpana Kotagal to serve as a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If confirmed, Kotagal would give the EEOC Democratic control for the first time under the Biden administration, as she would fill the seat currently held by Janet Dhillon, a Republican appointee whose term expires on July 1.

    Kotagal is currently a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and is a member of the firm’s civil rights and employment practice group and chair of their hiring and diversity committee. In her time with Cohen Milstein, she has worked on several high-profile cases, including:

    • a class action lawsuit representing over 69,000 female employees against Sterling Jewelers alleging gender discrimination and Equal Pay Act violations — a case that may reach the Supreme Court; and
    • a class action against AT&T Mobility Services in which the company’s sales representatives allege that the company’s attendance and late policy amounts to pregnancy discrimination and violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act.

    Kotagal is also a co-author of the Inclusion Rider, which is a legal template that individuals in the entertainment industry can add to their contracts to demand diversity and inclusivity on projects. She and her co-authors drafted the rider and made it public so anyone in the industry can use it.

    In addition to her work with Cohen Milstein, Kotagal sits on the board of directors of A Better Balance, a nonprofit that litigates pregnancy discrimination claims and advocates for “supportive policies,” including paid sick, family and medical leave, fair scheduling and accessible, and quality childcare and education. She is also a board member for the Public Justice Foundation, a nonprofit focused on “high-impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the earth’s sustainability and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses.”

    Kotagal is also a co-chair of the alumni advisory board on equity and inclusion at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a member of the American Constitution Society Task Force on #MeToo in the legal profession, and serves on the advisory counsel of the People’s Parity Project, which focuses on reforming the legal system.

    CUPA-HR will monitor and keep members apprised of any updates to her nomination during the confirmation process.



    Source link

  • DOL to Host Regional Listening Sessions for Proposed Overtime Rule Regulations – CUPA-HR

    DOL to Host Regional Listening Sessions for Proposed Overtime Rule Regulations – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 7, 2022

    In the Biden administration’s fall 2021 regulatory agenda, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) announced that it planned to release in April 2022 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) changing criteria for the “executive, administrative and professional” exemptions from the overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In May and June, the DOL will host five regional listening sessions allowing stakeholders to discuss the anticipated proposed rule aimed at changing the exemptions to the federal overtime pay requirements.

    With listening sessions extending into May, the WHD will not be able to meet the April target date, but we do expect the agency will release a proposed rule in 2022 with compliance likely required in 2023. While the DOL has not shared how it may change the exemptions, it is holding listening sessions to elicit stakeholder input as to whether changes are appropriate and what changes would be appropriate at this time.

    Background

    According to the regulatory agenda, one of the goals of the NPRM would be “to update the salary level requirement of the section 13(a)(1) exemption [under the FLSA].” Changes to the overtime exemption minimum salary threshold have been proposed recently under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In 2016, President Obama’s DOL issued a final rule to increase the salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 per year and impose automatic updates to the threshold every three years, but the rule was subsequently struck down by federal court before taking effect in 2017. In 2019, the Trump administration issued a new final rule that raised the minimum salary threshold from $23,660 to $35,568 annually, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The $35,568 threshold remains in effect today.

    On March 29, in anticipation of the upcoming Biden administration rule, the DOL held a virtual higher education-specific listening session for D.C.-based higher education associations, including CUPA-HR. The listening session was scheduled after CUPA-HR and 14 other higher education associations submitted a request that the DOL hold such meetings prior to releasing the anticipated NPRM. CUPA-HR and several other higher education associations joined the session to discuss potential concerns institutions may have with an increase to the minimum salary threshold at this time.

    Regional Sessions

    In addition to the D.C. meeting held in March, the DOL is planning to host five additional regional listening sessions for employers. The sessions include the following:

    • Northeast Employers: May 13 at 3:30 p.m. EDT
    • Southeast Employers: May 17 at 2:00 p.m. EDT
    • Midwest Employers: May 20 at 3:30 p.m. EDT
    • Southwest Employers: May 27 at 3:00 p.m. EDT
    • West Employers: June 3 at 3:30 p.m. EDT

    If your institution is interested in participating in any of the regional meetings, please reach out to CUPA-HR’s Chief Government Relation Officer Josh Ulman at [email protected]. Additional information about the D.C. listening session and CUPA-HR’s talking points will be provided upon inquiry.



    Source link

  • House Passes Bipartisan Retirement Savings Bill – CUPA-HR

    House Passes Bipartisan Retirement Savings Bill – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 4, 2022

    On March 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2954, the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 414-5. The bill includes many provisions to boost individual retirement savings and expand coverage to better access retirement savings programs.

    The bill includes several provisions that would impact employer-sponsored retirement programs. Notably, the bill would make enrollment in newly created 401(k) and 403(b) plans mandatory for eligible employees beginning in 2024. Employers with 10 or fewer employees or those that have been in business for fewer than three years would be exempt from this requirement, and employees would be able to opt out of the program. Additionally, the bill requires employers to allow part-time employees to participate in 401(k) plans if they work at least 500 hours per year after two years working for the employer — a decrease from the previously required three years.

    The bill will also allow employers to make matching contributions to the 401(k), 403(b) or SIMPLE IRA account of employees who are paying off student loans and do not contribute enough to their accounts to receive a full employer match.

    In addition to the provisions related to employer plans, the bill also has provisions for individual workers. The bill allows older workers to make bigger contributions to their retirement accounts than is currently allowed. Specifically, individuals aged 62-64 would be able to contribute an extra $10,000 for 401(k) plans and other programs and $3,000 for SIMPLE plans per year to such accounts beginning in 2024. These “catch-up” contributions would be required to be made after taxes.

    The bill now heads to the Senate where it will need to pass with 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. Given the bipartisan support in the House, the bill could receive similar support from both parties, but it is unclear when and how the Senate will vote.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised as this bill moves through the Senate.



    Source link

  • Tools to Build a Harassment-Free Higher Ed Workplace – CUPA-HR

    Tools to Build a Harassment-Free Higher Ed Workplace – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 30, 2022

    Sexual violence is a multi-faceted and difficult topic. Higher ed institutions either enter the conversation before an event of sexual violence has occurred or after it has occurred, leaving the institution scrambling for answers to the campus community as to why it happened in the first place.

    As part of upcoming Sexual Assault Awareness Month (April), we’re highlighting some CUPA-HR resources that share first-hand experiences from some higher ed institutions and the strategies and trainings they’ve used to respond to and approach the topic of sexual violence on campus.

    Strategies to Create a Harassment-Free Workplace

    In an article in the spring 2020 issue of Higher Ed HR Magazine, UMass Lowell detailed how they addressed concerns about a sexual harassment complaint the university received several years prior that spurred anger among students, faculty and staff. Questions were raised as to how decisions were made following the violation, whether the sanctions were sufficiently severe and what steps were taken to mitigate risk of recurrence.

    In response, the chancellor convened a task force to review the university’s Title IX policies and procedures, educational efforts, culture and climate, and communications on these issues, and to make a set of recommendations to the executive cabinet for future improvements. Read the full article to learn about how the task force practiced transparency, built trust among the community and key themes that emerged in the recommendations from the task force: A Matter of Trust: Strategies for Creating a Harassment-Free Workplace

    Impactful, Engaging In-Person Sexual Harassment Training

    While training alone isn’t the answer to creating a harassment-free environment, it certainly should be part of an institution’s broader strategy. However, in order to make an impact, the training must be engaging, insightful, interactive and relatable — and sitting at a desk clicking through an online training module or watching a video about workplace harassment is anything but engaging. With an in-person training approach, participants can ask questions, engage one another in dialogue, and connect to the content, making the messaging more likely to stick.

    Explore the benefits of and barriers to in-person sexual harassment training, as well as examples of interactive in-person training activities in the article A Thoughtful Approach: How to Conduct Impactful, Engaging In-Person Sexual Harassment Training.

    Additional Sexual Harassment Resources

    CUPA-HR’s Title IX and Sexual Harassment Toolkit is a great place to check out what other institutions are doing to mitigate sexual harassment and misconduct. The toolkit highlights sexual harassment and reporting policies, trainings and other tools for HR pros.

    By tapping into these resources, higher ed institutions can positions themselves as those that prioritize prevention over reaction when it comes to sexual violence on campus.

    Related resources:

    How Institutions Are Leveraging Partnerships and Education to Address Sexual Harassment and As

    4 Ways to Mitigate Risk Related to Sexual Misconduct and Harassment on Campus

    Sexual Harassment Resources



    Source link

  • Workplace Eye Wellness Month: How HR Can Help Employees With Low Vision or Vision Loss – CUPA-HR

    Workplace Eye Wellness Month: How HR Can Help Employees With Low Vision or Vision Loss – CUPA-HR

    by Jill Thompson | March 22, 2022

    Whether it was logging overtime behind laptops before work-from-home boundaries were put in place or turning to mobile phones and tablets for entertainment during lockdowns, many of us recognized the uptick in screen time during the height of the pandemic. Our eyes likely noticed the uptick too by feeling increasingly strained.

    March is Workplace Eye Wellness month, so we’re highlighting some tips from Prevent Blindness to help keep screen time in check and lessen eye strain at work and at home.

    • Screen time: Try to decrease the amount of time spent in front of screens and/or take frequent breaks to give your eyes a rest.
    • Use the 20-20-20 rule: Every 20 minutes, take a 20-second break and look at something 20 feet away.
    • Filters: Screen filters are available for smart phones, tablets and computer screens. They decrease the amount of blue light given off from these devices that could reach the retina in the eyes.
    • Anti-reflective lenses: Anti-reflective lenses reduce glare and increase contrast and also block blue light from the sun and digital devices.
    • Intraocular lens (IOL): After cataract surgery, the cloudy lens will be replaced with an intraocular lens (IOL). The lens naturally protects the eye from almost all ultraviolet light and some blue light. There are types of IOLs that can protect the eye and retina from blue light.

    Visit Prevent Blindness for more information and resources on eye and vision health.

    HR Perspective

    From the human resources perspective, HR practitioners can help employees who are experiencing vision loss or low vision. Employees experiencing a decrease in vision may have difficulty completing paperwork, reading standard-size print, discerning regular or colored font on computer screens, or locating the cursor, all of which impact productivity at work.

    In the Disability in the Workplace toolkit in CUPA-HR’s Knowledge Center, Mississippi State University’s HR guide offers plenty of creative low-tech and high-tech accommodations for employees with low vision:

    Low-tech accommodations:

    • Place tactile dots on controls on equipment, such as the telephone, a copier, the microwave in the breakroom, etc. so that an individual who is blind or visually impaired can determine which buttons perform different functions.
    • Place a braille sticker on an employee’s mail slot to identify it.
    • Increase or decrease lighting in an office or cubicle to increase visibility or reduce glare.
    • Cover a window to reduce glare.
    • Provide extra floor space in a cubicle to accommodate a guide dog.

    High-tech accommodations:

    • Implement screen reading or screen magnification software to allow an employee who is blind or has low vision to complete computer tasks.
    • Provide a larger monitor or dual monitors to allow an individual with low vision greater access to visual information.
    • Implement a braille display paired with the computer or an iPad or used independently to allow vision-impaired employees to take notes and recall information.
    • Provide a video magnifier to increase the size of print and enhance the contrast of printed materials.
    • Provide optical character recognition hardware or software to capture print information and translate it to audio output.

    To read the full guide and explore other disability inclusion examples from higher ed, visit the Disability in the Workplace toolkit (CUPA-HR members only resource).



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 21, 2022

    On February 17, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining plans to impose new HR-related conditions on USDA contracts. If finalized, the rule would require federal contractors on projects procured by the USDA to certify their compliance with dozens of federal and state labor laws and executive orders. The proposal mirrors similar “blacklisting” regulations pursued by the USDA during the Obama administration.

    The USDA provided only 32 days for stakeholders to submit comments on the proposal. CUPA-HR, along with several other higher education associations, 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.” CUPA-HR plans to file comments on the proposal as well.

    The new proposed rulemaking amends the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) to require federal contractors on USDA supply and service projects that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold to certify that they and their subcontractors and suppliers are “in compliance with” 15 federal labor laws, their state equivalents and executive orders. This includes, but is not limited to:

    • Fair Labor Standards Act;
    • Occupational Safety and Health Act;
    • National Labor Relations Act;
    • Service Contract Act;
    • Davis-Bacon Act;
    • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act;
    • Americans with Disabilities Act;
    • Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and
    • Family and Medical Leave Act.

    Additionally, federal contractors submitting offers for a project would be required to disclose to the USDA previous violations and certify they and their subcontractors “are in compliance with” any required corrective actions for those violations. They would also be required to alert USDA to any future adjudications of non-compliance.

    In 2011, the USDA tried to implement a similar policy via a Direct Final Rule and NPRM, but was forced to withdraw both due to stakeholder pushback. CUPA-HR filed comments with the Society for Human Resource Management calling the rules arbitrary and capricious. Our comments also criticized the rules for not adequately clarifying how contractors were expected to comply with the changes and for imposing severe penalties. Additionally, CUPA-HR joined comments filed by the American Council on Education and several other higher education associations that argued the USDA’s rules “impose[d] an unmanageable compliance burden and uncertain compliance risk for colleges and universities that conduct agricultural research under contracts with the [USDA].”

    Additionally, the Obama administration issued an executive order in July 2014 implementing a similar government-wide policy. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council and the Department of Labor issued regulations and guidance, respectively, implementing the order, but they were blocked by a federal judge in October 2016 for violating the First Amendment and due process rights. Congress also passed a Congressional Review Act challenge to the executive order in 2017, permanently withdrawing the executive order and barring the FAR Council from issuing any substantially similar regulations.

    Unlike past proposals, this time the USDA has stated that the certifications will be subject to the False Claims Act (FCA), which provides for substantially increased liability. The FCA provides for treble damages and penalties and allows for private citizens to file suits on behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits). Qui tam litigants receive a portion of the government’s recovery. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the awards to qui tam litigants in FCA suits topped $238 million in 2021. The same DOJ statistics show qui tam suits were the majority of FCA claims, with the government filing 203 new suits under FCA in 2021 compared to 598 qui tam suits in the same year.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this issue closely.



    Source link

  • Supreme Court Issues Decision Regarding Retirement Plan Fiduciary Duties in Hughes v. Northwestern – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court Issues Decision Regarding Retirement Plan Fiduciary Duties in Hughes v. Northwestern – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 18, 2022

    On January 24, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, a case dealing with 403(b) retirement plan fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court criticized the standard applied by the lower courts and sent the case back to the 7th Circuit to reevaluate the plaintiffs’ allegations.

    In the case, the three plaintiffs, all current or former employees of the university, alleged the plan fiduciaries violated the duty of prudence standard under ERISA by “(1) failing to monitor and control recordkeeping fees, resulting in unreasonably high costs to plan participants; (2) offering mutual funds and annuities in the form of ‘retail’ share classes that carried higher fees than those charged for otherwise identical share classes (institutional share class) of the same investments; and (3) offering investment options that were likely to confuse investors.”

    In their decision, which was written by Justice Sotomayor, the court explained that, when determining if a plan fiduciary violated the duty of prudence standard under ERISA, courts must engage in “a context-specific inquiry of the fiduciaries’ continuing duty to monitor investments and to remove imprudent ones” as articulated in Supreme Court precedent, Tibble. The court said the 7th Circuit was wrong in concluding that by providing a choice of investment options, plan fiduciaries insulated themselves from liability claims. It is important to note that the court chose not to weigh in on the plausibility of the plaintiffs’ claims, only on the standard applied by the lower courts.

    CUPA-HR, along with 17 other higher education associations, participated in an amicus brief filed in the case. In the brief, we supported the 7th Circuit’s decision in favor of Northwestern University. We explained, “The question in this case is whether petitioners have pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty in administering a retirement plan” under ERISA, but the complaints in this case “overlook important features of the university retirement system and ignore the discretion ERISA affords to plan fiduciaries.” We also clarified that universities and plan fiduciaries “must have the flexibility o administer the plans based upon the particular needs and preferences of the plan participants, without constant second-guessing.”

    The 7th Circuit now has the opportunity to revisit the case. It may choose to dismiss much of the case or review the record again.

    Following the decision, our amicus briefing counsel was quoted saying, “Despite some of the early headlines that have already been written suggesting this case is a really big deal, in fact, I view this as a limited ruling… [T]he Supreme Court did not reach any specific or detailed conclusions that any of the investments offered by the defendants in this case are actually inappropriate, nor did the justices come down and say a fiduciary can never offer retail shares of funds within their institutional retirement plans. Instead, what they said, in a nutshell, is that the 7th Circuit simply did not give enough consideration of the duty-to-monitor precedents set by Tibble.”

    Importantly, the final sentence of the Supreme Court’s decision provided a silver lining; “At times, the circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate difficult tradeoffs, and courts must give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise.” The court here is clarifying that fiduciaries must be given due deference when making tough decisions.

    That being said, the decision could pave the way for more cases on fiduciary duties to be filed, as plaintiffs’ attorneys may take advantage of the potential opening in order to force settlements.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 9, 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.

    National College Players Association Files Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against the NCAA and Multiple Public and Private Colleges, Asserting College Basketball and Football Players Are Employees Under the NLRA

    The National College Players Association (NCPA), a non-profit advocacy group, has filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asserting that private and public universities, USC and UCLA, as well as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Pac-12 conference as joint employers have violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in refusing to treat college basketball and football players as employees. The NCPA hopes to convince the NLRB to rule that all division college basketball and football players at public and private colleges and universities are employees with collective bargaining rights.

    The current NLRB general counsel has stated publicly that she believes that student-athletes at private colleges and universities are employees subject to coverage under the NLRB. Nonetheless, the NLRB with jurisdiction over private colleges and universities has not yet ruled on the issue. The NCPA asserts that public colleges and universities will be covered because they are joint employers with the NCAA and the Pac-12 conference, both of which are private organizations subject to NLRB jurisdiction. This joint employer argument has not been ruled on by the NLRB in the past.

    U.S. Court of Appeals to Consider Whether Student-Athletes Are Employees Under the FLSA and Must Be Paid Minimum Wage and Overtime 

    Apart from the action described above concerning whether student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and therefore subject to unionization and mandatory collective bargaining, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland) will hear an appeal by colleges that the lawsuit by student-athletes seeking coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and minimum wage and overtime payments should not go to trial, but rather should be dismissed under current precedent. The lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania against the NCAA and several Division-I colleges.

    The federal trial court judge denied the NCAA’s and college’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that the case proceed to trial. The NCAA and colleges argued that the trial court judge’s decision contradicted the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana) and a California state court case ruling that the student-athletes are not employees under the FLSA (Johnson et, al v. NCAA et al (3rd Cir., Case no. 22-8003, 2/4/22)).

    Gymnastics Coach Claims Gender Bias and Sex Stereotype That Female Coaches Are Not Expected to Be As Aggressive as Their Male Counterparts as Reasons For Her Termination  

    A former Towson University gymnastics coach was terminated after the university received complaints from gymnastics team members claiming that her coaching techniques were discriminatory against Black team members, that she bullied team members into competing while injured and that she did not adequately feed the team. The coach claimed that the termination resulted from the sex stereotype that female coaches are not expected to be as aggressive as their male counterparts.

    The university countered that her discharge resulted from valid complaints by team members. The university also argued that it is the coach who is guilty of sex stereotyping with regard to her defense that female athletes are more likely to complain about her coaching practices than male athletes. The university also responded to the coach’s claim of pregnancy discrimination, arguing that the coach never explicitly advised the university that she was pregnant. The coach claimed that she was visibly pregnant at her last meeting with the university. The case is pending in federal district court in Maryland (May v. Towson University (Case no. 1:21-cv-02229, D. Md.)).

    Federal Court Rules School District Likely Violated Constitutional Rights of Three Paraprofessionals Who Were Prohibited From Wearing Black Lives Matter and Other Anti-Racism Messaging 

    A federal district court trial judge ruled in favor of three paraprofessional employees who were prohibited by their school district from wearing masks and other clothing with Black Lives Matter and other anti-racism messaging. The judge ruled that the school board’s actions “likely” violated First Amendment free speech rights (Fuller et al v. Warren County Educational Service Center et al (2022 BL 48702, S.D. Ohio 2/14/22)).

    The judge ruled that the school district must immediately lift its ban on any such controversial social or political messaging while the case is litigated further. The judge ruled that the employees’ messaging addresses a matter of public concern and they “spoke” as private citizens by making statements on Black Lives Matter and other related issues that are not within their job duties. The judge concluded that the school district did not demonstrate that the wearing of the material would disrupt school operations. While avoiding an emotional or violent outburst by a sensitive student body would justify the ban, the school district did not prove the likelihood of such a development. The judge also concluded that there was no evidence supporting the school district’s concerns, making them purely conjectural and outweighed by the free speech rights of the employees.

    Professor Files ADA and Rehab Act Discrimination Case Alleging His Heightened COVID-19 Risk Is a Disability and He Was Unfairly Denied a Reasonable Accommodation to Continue Teaching Remotely

    A former science professor at Georgia Military College sued the college’s board of directors in federal court after he was put on an unpaid suspension and ultimately terminated following the alleged denial of his accommodation request that would allow him to teach his classes remotely based on his doctor’s advice that he was of high risk for COVID-19 because of numerous conditions, including Crohn’s disease, kidney failure and anemia. The professor asked that he be allowed to continue teaching remotely as he had allegedly done for six months before the college asked most professors to resume teaching in person. The professor alleges that other professors were allowed to continue teaching remotely in small class situations, but he was denied his request because his class was very large due to the popularity of his teaching (Fields v. Board of Trustees of Georgia Military College and Georgia Military Prep School (M. Dist. Ga. 5-22-cv-00074)).

    The professor claimed that he was a former recipient of a teaching excellence award at the school and was treated “dismissively” in his denial of his accommodation request. He also claims he was allowed to teach remotely due to his disabilities in 2016, prior to the pandemic, and that is when he received the teaching excellence award. The college claimed it responded to his accommodation request by offering him two alternatives: return to teaching in person or take an unpaid leave of absence. The professor is seeking back pay, loss of employment benefits and three to five years of front pay. The professor claims job reinstatement is not feasible in these circumstances.



    Source link

  • National Women’s History Month: Past and Present Higher Ed HR Trailblazers – CUPA-HR

    National Women’s History Month: Past and Present Higher Ed HR Trailblazers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 2, 2022

    National Women’s History Month celebrates the contributions and achievements women have made throughout U.S. history. CUPA-HR is fortunate to have had many smart and dedicated women serve on its national, regional and chapter boards and on various committees. In addition to providing leadership at work, they have volunteered their time and shared their know-how — lighting the way for other women in the field.

    To celebrate the month, we’re spotlighting some of the many leaders who have transformed higher ed HR and CUPA-HR. Sure to inspire, these articles and podcast episodes offer unique perspectives of higher ed HR, career journeys, struggles, successes and everything in between.

    Looking Back to Move Forward

    Blazing a Trail: Women Who Paved the Way in Higher Ed HR, from a 2014 issue of Higher Ed HR Magazine, features five CUPA-HR leaders who began their higher ed HR careers in a very different era — when HR was still “personnel,” men dominated the profession and the nature of the work was strictly focused on policies and procedures. These women rose to leadership positions, not only in their departments, but across their institutions. Read about their challenges, their regrets, their successes and a few war stories to boot.

    More Stories That Inspire

    CUPA-HR Conversations: Higher Ed HR Turns 75 Podcast features higher ed HR leaders and past CUPA-HR national board chairs who have left their mark on both the association and the profession.

    • In Episode 2: Growing Through Change, Allison Vaillancourt reflects on some professional advice she received from a CUPA-HR peer that changed her entire approach to HR and helped advance her career and secure several leadership positions.
    • Lynn Bynum shares how CUPA-HR helped her make the transition from the corporate world to higher ed HR, and Lauren Turner offers insights into how HR can become a recognized leader within the institution and help others become better leaders in Episode 4: Model Behavior.
    • Jane Federowicz reflects on her unexpected path to HR, starting out as her institution’s accountant and ending up being asked to create an HR department, in Episode 6: When Opportunity Knocks.
    • In Episode 7: Lifelong Learning, Barbara Carroll dives into some experiences she never thought she would have as an HR leader, including serving on CUPA-HR’s Public Policy Committee and providing a higher ed perspective to a room full of senators and congressional representatives, and Linda Lulli discusses the importance of being a lifelong learner in the HR profession and how to be adaptable and resilient.

    Time-Out With Tammi & Tyler is a podcast that explores how higher ed HR careers evolve by interviewing professionals at the top of their HR game, sharing advice they would give professionals climbing the higher ed HR ladder.

    • In Episode 1, Donna Popovich offers advice for early-career professionals.
    • Sheraine Gilliam walks through her story of persistence, networking and how to turn negative situations into opportunities for growth in Episode 3.
    • In Episode 5, Clarity White describes how her Wildfire program experience helped advance her HR career.

    Related resources:

    21-Day Challenge: Focus on Women (First two weeks of the challenge)



    Source link

  • New Report on the Representation of Women and Racial/Ethnic Minorities in the Workforce of Minority-Serving Institutions – CUPA-HR

    New Report on the Representation of Women and Racial/Ethnic Minorities in the Workforce of Minority-Serving Institutions – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 23, 2022

    Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) play an important role in ensuring students from underrepresented races and ethnicities receive a quality education.

    While there is an abundance of research on students who attend MSIs, little research has examined the MSI workforce, specifically, how the racial/ethnic representation of faculty, administrator, professional and staff reflects the student populations being served.

    The latest CUPA-HR report, The Representation of Women and Racial/Ethnic Minorities in the Workforce of Minority-Serving Higher Education Institutions targets this gap by providing an overview of MSI representation among all U.S. higher ed institutions and showing their geographic spread across the country; providing a closer examination of racial/ethnic and gender composition of faculty, administrators, professionals and non-exempt staff; and assessing how well the racial/ethnic composition of the higher ed workforce at MSIs reflects their student populations and matches the minority-serving mission of the institutions.

    Key findings from the report:

    • MSIs have higher racial/ethnic minority representation among their workforce than non-MSIs.
    • HBCUs have the highest representation of racial/ethnic minority employees.
    • Overall, the representation of racial/ethnic minority faculty at MSIs does not match the representation in students.
    • Overall, administrators, professionals, and staff at MSIs have similar racial/ethnic minority representation when compared to students.

    For more findings on the representation of women and racial/ethnic minorities in the workforce at MSIs, read the full report.



    Source link