Tag: CUPAHR

  • Getting Organic Engagement in a Mental Health Awareness Program – CUPA-HR

    Getting Organic Engagement in a Mental Health Awareness Program – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | July 15, 2024

    Employers have enormous sway over employee health. That’s one of the major takeaways from the CUPA-HR webinar An Integrated Approach to Fostering Workplace Well-Being, led by Mikel LaPorte and Laura Gottlieb of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. They collected eye-opening data that helped them make the case to leadership for a mental health awareness campaign. In a Workforce Institute report they cited, employees say that managers have a greater impact on their mental health than their doctors or therapists — roughly the same impact as their spouse!

    In the webinar, LaPorte and Gottlieb discussed how their robust, research-driven suite of content is helping to normalize discussions of mental health on campus. They’re even being asked to present their well-being trainings at meetings, a sign that their push for mental health awareness is resonating organically.

    A One-Stop Shop for Mental Health

    The awareness campaign centers on their wellness website, which acts as a one-stop shop for campus mental health. (Right now, the site is internal-facing only, but the recorded webinar has rich details and example slides.) There, they organize their podcast episodes, articles and curated content, as well as marshal all the mental health resources currently available to staff, students and faculty.

    They’ve also found a way to make this initiative sustainable for HR in the long term by recruiting faculty subject matter experts to write on topics such as compassion fatigue. These experts are then interviewed on their quarterly podcast, Well-Being Wisdom. Tapping into faculty experts also ensures rigor in their sources, a significant step in getting buy-in from a population who requires well-vetted wellness practices.

    Getting Organic Engagement Starts With Leaders  

    LaPorte and Gottlieb have faced the typical challenge when rolling out a new campaign: engagement. Email fatigue means that sending messages through this channel isn’t always effective. But they’ve started to look at ways of increasing engagement through different communication channels, often in person.

    Direct outreach to team leaders is key. They regularly attend leadership meetings and ask different schools and departments to invite them in for facilitated mental health activities. (In the webinar, you can practice one of these, a brief guided meditation.) They’ve developed a leader guide and toolkit, including turnkey slides leaders can insert into decks to open or close discussions. Leaders are supplied with “can opener” discussion items, such as

    • “I made a difference yesterday when I…”
    • “Compassion is hardest when…”
    • “I show up every day because…”

    Not only does this provide opportunities to normalize conversations around mental health, but it also strengthens relationship-building — a key metric in workplace well-being. As CUPA-HR has found, job satisfaction and well-being is the strongest predictor of retention by far for higher ed employees.

    Campus leaders are now reaching out to the learning and leadership development team to request mental health activities at meetings. Some of the workshops offered include living in the age of distraction, mindful breathing techniques, and the science of happiness. For more details on UT Health San Antonio’s well-being offerings, including ways they’re revamping their program this fiscal year (think: less is more), view the recorded webinar here.



    Source link

  • Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration Releases Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 11, 2024

    On July 5, the Biden administration released the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Action (Regulatory Agenda), providing insights on regulatory and deregulatory activity under development across more than 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. The Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the first of two that will be released during the calendar year, and it sets target dates for regulatory actions in the coming months.

    CUPA-HR’s government relations team reviews each Regulatory Agenda that is released and has put together the following list of noteworthy regulations included in the current edition.

    Department of Education

    Office for Civil Rights – Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnicity in Response to EO 13899 on Combating Anti-Semitism and EO 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is targeting December 2024 for the release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OCR’s enforcement responsibilities for cases involving discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR is issuing this NPRM in response to a 2019 Trump Executive Order (EO) and a 2021 Biden EO.

    The NPRM has become a higher priority for OCR, given the recent political activity on campus related to the war in Gaza and related scrutiny from Congressional Republicans of higher education’s response to protests on campus. In the Regulatory Agenda announcement, OCR explains the need for this rulemaking by stating that they have “received complaints of harassment and assaults directed at Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other students based on their shared ancestry or ethnicity.”

    Office for Civil Rights – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Biden administration has pushed its final rule on transgender students’ participation in athletic programs to its “long-term actions,” with an undetermined date for when the final rule will be published. In the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda, the final rule was previously targeted for March 2024.

    OCR released an NPRM on this topic in April 2023. Under the NPRM, schools that receive federal funding would not be permitted to adopt or apply a one-size-fits-all ban on transgender students participating on teams consistent with their gender identity. Instead, the proposal allows schools the flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serves important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The department further explained that the eligibility criteria must take into account the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level of students participating, and the criteria would have to minimize harm to students whose opportunity to participate on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

    The move to push the final rule to “long-term actions” with an undetermined publication date is likely a result of recent challenges to the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule and the upcoming election. Shortly after the Title IX rule was published, over two dozen states joined lawsuits challenging the regulations, with many citing the inclusion of protections for gender identity and sexual orientation as top concerns with the final rule. Since then, the Title IX final rule has been blocked from going into effect on August 1 in 14 states.

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

    Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

    In December 2024, the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) anticipate releasing a final rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) on pay equity and transparency in federal contracting.

    The joint agencies published a pay equity and transparency NPRM in January 2024. In the NPRM, the agencies propose to amend the FAR to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”), and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose on job announcements the compensation to be offered (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    As part of its justification for publishing the NPRM, the proposal noted that 21 states, 22 localities, and Washington, D.C., have put bans into place that prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary, and 10 states have pay transparency laws in place, with several other states working toward implementing such laws.

    Department of Homeland Security

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) anticipates releasing at least one more final rule to modernize the H-1B and F-1 visa programs in December 2024.

    In October 2023, USCIS issued an NPRM to simplify the application process for H-1B visas, increase the program’s efficiency, and strengthen the program’s integrity measures. In February 2024, USCIS issued a final rule to implement a new beneficiary-centric selection process for H-1B registrations, but it did not finalize all of the provisions that were originally included in the NPRM. When publishing the February 2024 final rule, DHS indicated that it planned to publish a separate final rule to address the remaining aspects from October’s proposed rule. The separate final action listed in the Spring Regulatory Agenda will likely be the remainder of the provisions from the NPRM.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates to these regulations and additional policies as they are introduced.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — July 2024 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — July 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 10, 2024

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

    University of California and UAW Agree to End Grad Student Strike

    The rolling strike of University of California graduate students at several campuses, protesting the university’s handling of Israel-Hamas war protests is formally over as a result of the university and union agreement to extend the injunction granted by a California state court at the university’s request. The university successfully argued that the rolling strike violated the collective bargaining agreement’s no-strike provision. The UAW represents 38,000 grad students at several University of California campuses.

    UC student workers walked off their jobs at six campuses in May and continued a rolling strike until the court enjoined the strike activity. The university breach-of-contract litigation continues, as there remain issues to be decided by the court as to the breadth of the no-strike provisions and the university’s claim for damages resulting from the breach of the no-strike provisions.

    University Prevails in Title IX Lawsuit Alleging Student Sex Harassment at a Private Party Off Campus

    A federal judge recent ruled that a plaintiff student failed to provide evidence that the university had substantial control over the context in which the assault or sex harassment occurred to make the university liable under Title IX. The judge concluded that even though the university had control over the alleged harasser because of an alleged student code violation, this was not enough to substantiate jurisdiction under Title IX (Roe V. Marshall University Board of Governors (2024 BL 215044, S.D. W. Va. No. 3:22-cv-00532, 6/24/24)).

    When the harassment occurs off campus, the judge ruled that the court must find some nexus between the “out of school conduct and the school.” The court concluded that the incident in question took place at a private party at a private residence and the party was not sanctioned, hosted or sponsored by the university or an entity affiliated with the university. Moreover, permission for the party was not sought from the university, and the university was unaware of the party until it was over.

    The university’s Title IX office determined, four days after the incident, that the matter should be handled by the university’s Office of Student Conduct, which the judge concluded was consistent with Title IX regulations at the time. The student conduct office immediately issued an no-contact order between the student and the alleged harasser and conducted a six-week investigation.

    The male student (alleged harasser) was ultimately placed on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program, do 20 hours of community service, and accept responsibility for violation of the student code. The plaintiff (alleged victim) was also put on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program and complete 10 hours of community service, after admitting to underage drinking. In dismissing the case against the university, the judge also concluded that the male student (alleged harasser) also faced possible independent criminal penalties.

    Two Conservative Groups Are Bringing Court Challenges to Large Employers’ Workplace DEI Programs

    America First Legal, led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed at least 15 lawsuits alleging that employer DEI programs are illegal under Title VII and has sent more than 30 letters asking the EEOC to probe employer DEI programs at large employers, including Morgan Stanley and IBM Corp. Academic institutions could be their next target.

    The second organization, American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by conservative activist Edward Blum, has claimed that these DEI programs violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which affirms that all citizens are equally protected by the law. The organization has used the 1866 statute in challenging DEI programs at law firms, including Winston and Strawn, Morrison Foerster, and Perkins Coe. The 1866 statute is broader than Title VII. Plaintiffs suing under the 1866 statute avoid the Title VII damage cap and the requirement that a charge be filed with the EEOC before filing suit.

    Transgender Woman Reaches Settlement of Claim That She Was Wrongly Denied Medical Coverage

    A transgender woman plaintiff sued her employer’s group insurance plan, alleging that she was wrongly denied medical coverage for facial hair removal, which she claimed is an extremely important part of gender-affirming care. The plaintiff alleged that the care is deemed medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The lawsuit claimed that the denial, based on the conclusion that the surgery was cosmetic and unnecessary, was inconsistent with the evidence presented that the treatment was medically necessary (Cox V. WSP USA Inc. Group Insurance Plan (N.D. Cal. No. 3-24-cv-01312, 6/6/24)).

    The plaintiff sought $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses plus $20,000 for future services. The case was dismissed after the parties stipulated to the judge that they had reached an undisclosed settlement.

    Supreme Court Raises the Bar for the NLRB to Obtain an Adverse Injunction Against an Employer for Unfair Labor Practices

    The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts should give no more weight to an NLRB request for injunctive relief against employers allegedly violating the NLRA unfair labor practice provisions than it would give other litigants in injunction cases (Starbucks Corp, V. McKinney (U.S. No. 23-367, 6/13/24)). The Supreme Court essentially held that a defending employer is entitled to discovery over the NLRB’s alleged evidence before the court can issue an injunction. In the past, the NLRB has been able to maintain secrecy over this information when seeking extraordinary relief (e.g. an injunction requiring reinstatement of employees allegedly terminated for supporting a union).

    Supreme Court to Determine Employer Burden of Proof to Obtain an Exemption From FLSA Minimum Wage and Overtime Provisions

    The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to resolve the split in appellate courts on the precise evidentiary burden applicable to employers attempting to justify an exemption to the application of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. Right now the circuits are split over whether an employer must prove an exemption by “clear and convincing evidence” rather than the lesser standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” The Supreme Court will resolve this split and decide which standard is applicable to employers going forward (E.M.D. Sales Inc. V. Carrera (U.S. No. 23-217, petition granted 6/17/24)).

    The issue involves whether the defendant firm’s sales personnel fall inside the “outside sales exemption.”  The company lost the case at trial, where the federal court held that it did not meet the “clear and convincing” standard, while numerous other appellate courts have applied the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard.



    Source link

  • Five Resources to Level Up Supervisor Training and Leadership Development – CUPA-HR

    Five Resources to Level Up Supervisor Training and Leadership Development – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | July 2, 2024

    Supervisor training and leadership development are top priorities for HR — and it’s no wonder why. Skilled supervisors are critical to increasing employees’ job satisfaction. A solid leadership pipeline ensures that both institutional knowledge and talented employees remain at a college or university. And higher ed employees have a strong desire for professional and leadership development, which affects how they view their jobs.

    How can institutions support supervisors and those who might move into that role? How can HR mitigate supervisor burnout? What about encouraging career development for employees who want a more fulfilling role, but not necessarily as a supervisor? Several higher ed HR practitioners have shared with CUPA-HR how they are tackling these common challenges.

    10 Roadblocks to Supervision (and How to Surpass Them) (Watch Now) and Roadblocks to Supervision: Clearing a Path for Peer-To-Supervisors, New Supervisors and Hybrid Team Supervisors (Read Now)

    While it might be evident that a supervisor is struggling, diagnosing the reason why is more complex. That’s exactly what this pair of valuable resources is designed to help with. Based on supervisor trainings at the University of North Carolina System, this webinar and companion article break down supervisor struggles into an adaptable list of roadblocks that prevent supervisors from flourishing. These range from interpersonal skills (such as misaligned communication styles), to systemic workload issues (supervisors being too busy), to communication across divisions (leaving HR out of the loop when a problem arises).

    Building Leaders From Within: UT Rio Grande Valley Blends Leadership Development With a Master’s in Higher Ed Administration (Read Now)

    The need for an internal talent pipeline at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley was clear. So was the need to retain valuable employees, who sought career development opportunities. (The desire for promotion or more responsibility is the third most-cited reason for higher ed employees seeking new jobs.) To address both challenges, HR teamed up with administrative and academic leadership to create an innovative — and mostly free — Master of Arts in higher education administration program for current employees. Learn how they built and executed this initiative, which welcomed 100 employees over the past few years.

    BRIGHT Leaders Program at UT Dallas (Watch Now)

    Recipient of the 2023 CUPA-HR Innovation Award, the BRIGHT Leaders program at the University of Texas at Dallas speaks to the needs of today’s employees, who desire flexible professional development programs. This webinar explains how BRIGHT Leaders encourages everyone on campus to lead from where they are. UT Dallas’s “all-access pass” model means any employee can take any leadership training session at any time. No matter their position or leadership level, all staff and faculty (and even students) are welcome to attend, and there’s no selective process that limits participation.

    Investing in People: How to Create a Coaching Culture on Your Campus (Read Now)

    Gone are the days when coaching was either for executives only or a remedy for poor performance. In fact, coaching can increase employee engagement and job satisfaction as well as boost retention and job performance. But coaching looks different from campus to campus. This article delves into how three institutions — Vanderbilt University, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and the University of California, Berkeley — created cultures of coaching on their campuses. This data-driven resource not only outlines these unique coaching programs, but also offers resources and tips to help you convince leadership that coaching is an essential element of creating future leaders.



    Source link

  • Overtime Rule Blocked for Public Institutions in Texas; House Advances Legislation Aiming to Block Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Overtime Rule Blocked for Public Institutions in Texas; House Advances Legislation Aiming to Block Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 1, 2024

    Update: On November 8, the federal judge from the Eastern District of Texas is set to hold a hearing on summary judgement in the business community’s challenge to DOL’s overtime final rule. While it is unknown how soon after we could get a decision on the validity of the rule, the judge could rule from the bench or quickly after the hearing. CUPA-HR will send out updates on the rulings as soon as we know.

    On June 28, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas Court granted a narrowly scoped preliminary injunction for the overtime rule in the state of Texas, blocking the Department of Labor’s overtime final rule from taking effect on July 1, 2024. The judge only blocked enforcement for employees of the state of Texas (i.e., public institutions), so private institutions in Texas and all other institutions outside of Texas will still need to comply with the overtime rule beginning July 1, 2024.

    The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed by the state of Texas alongside a lawsuit challenging the validity of the final rule in its entirety. At least two other lawsuits are currently pending before the Eastern District Court of Texas. The preliminary injunction will block the final rule from taking effect on July 1 for public employers and employees in Texas until a later decision is issued on the lawsuits challenging the validity of the final rule.

    As a reminder, the final rule implemented a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations. The first increase was expected to take effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year). The second increase is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, and it would increase the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year). The final rule also adopted automatic updates to the minimum salary threshold that would occur every three years.

    Given the judge’s narrow decision granting the preliminary injunction, private institutions in Texas and all institutions outside of Texas are still required to implement adjustments to comply with the July 1 minimum salary threshold until a later decision is made on the validity of the rule as a whole. CUPA-HR will be monitoring the pending cases closely.

    House Appropriations Subcommittee Bill

    On June 26, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education released their fiscal year 2025 funding legislation for the Department of Labor (DOL) and other related agencies, which included a provision to prohibit any funding provided to DOL under the bill from administering, implementing or enforcing the overtime final rule. The Subcommittee passed the legislation out of Committee during a markup on June 27. It will now be sent to the floor for a vote, where House Republicans have a slim majority and could pass the bill along partisan lines. The fate of the overtime provision appears uncertain in the Senate, however, as the Democrat-controlled chamber is unlikely to include such language in their appropriations bill. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of any updates on the status of the overtime final rule.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Welcomes a New Board of Directors for 2024-25 – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Welcomes a New Board of Directors for 2024-25 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 26, 2024

    As we prepare for a new year at CUPA-HR, we want to take a moment to introduce our board of directors for 2024-25 and to thank those who have served on the board over the past year. The board, which guides the association’s strategic priorities, is an incredible team of higher ed HR leaders who are dedicated to supporting and advancing the higher ed HR profession.

    2024-25 Board Members

    The chair of CUPA-HR’s board of directors for 2024-25 is Robyn Salvo, associate vice president for human resources at Monmouth University. Robyn has worked in HR for over 20 years, with the last 18 in higher ed at Monmouth University. In her current role, she leads an HR team in providing advice and guidance to the university covering all aspects of human resources, from talent management and compensation to benefits and compliance. Robyn has been a member of the CUPA-HR national board since 2020 and previously served as president of the CUPA-HR New Jersey Chapter.

    Also serving on this year’s board are:

    Executive Committee Members

    • Amanda Bailey, Chair-elect – Vice President for Human Resources at Boston University
    • Jami Painter, Past Chair – Senior Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Illinois System
    • Kelli Shuman, Treasurer – Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Chief Human Resources Officer at Elon University
    • Andy Brantley, Ex-Officio – President and Chief Executive Officer at CUPA-HR

    Regional Directors

    • Melanie DeSantis, Eastern Region – Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Chief Human Resources Officer at Franklin & Marshall College
    • Connie Putland, Midwest Region – Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
    • Ale Kennedy, Southern Region – Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Chief Human Resources Officer at Clemson University
    • Clarity White, Western Region – Human Resources Supervisor at the University of California, Berkeley

    At-Large Directors

    • Jazzmine N. Clarke-Glover – Vice President of Workplace Culture and Inclusion (Chief Human Resources Officer, Chief Diversity Officer, Title IX Coordinator) at Wagner College
    • Christine Lovely – Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at Cornell University
    • Josh Mackey – Vice President of Human Resources at Northern Arizona University
    • Helena A. Rodrigues – Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Arizona
    • Eugene Whitlock – Chief People and Culture Officer and Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources at the University of California, Berkeley
    • Lynne Adams – Chief Human Resources Officer and Associate Vice President, Human Resources at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
    • Maureen Binder – Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Central Florida
    • Clint Eury – Program Director, Human Resources Strategic Partnerships and Communications at the University of Maryland, College Park
    • David Zajchowski – Human Resources Director at Rollins College

    Thank you!

    We also want to celebrate the outstanding leaders who are rolling off the board. They have invested countless hours of their time and energy in leading our profession and our association, and we are so grateful for their wisdom and guidance.

    • Jay Stephens, Past Chair – Vice President of People and Culture at the University of Montana
    • Kristi Yowell – Chief People and Culture Officer and Associate Vice President for Human Resources at Loyola University Maryland
    • Heather Hart – Vice Chancellor of Human Resources and Strategic Operations at Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana-Lafayette
    • El pagnier Kay (EK) Hudson – Senior Vice President, Human Resources at Florida International University

    We couldn’t accomplish our mission without our leaders. Thank you for your dedication and commitment!

    CUPA-HR’s 2023-24 Board of Directors



    Source link

  • Taking Steps Toward Equity on Juneteenth – CUPA-HR

    Taking Steps Toward Equity on Juneteenth – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | June 18, 2024

    Juneteenth commemorates the end of slavery in the United States and is now recognized as a federal holiday — Juneteenth National Independence Day. Observing Juneteenth’s historical significance is a meaningful step in understanding American history. But for its history to mean something in our present moment, its lessons must be translated into tangible action. CUPA-HR offers the following resources, tools and research data to help confront and change racial inequities in the higher ed workforce.

    Racial Composition and Compensation  

    Lingering historical inequities remain in higher ed’s current-day compensation, hiring and promotion practices. Juneteenth is a reminder that we need urgent solutions to these persistent inequities. Here’s a snapshot of the composition and pay for people of color in the higher ed workforce:

    • Progress in both representation and pay has been sluggish for people of color, according to our data on administrators, faculty, professionals and staff collected in CUPA-HR’s signature surveys. Our interactive graphics track gender and racial composition as well as pay of administrators, faculty, professional and staff roles. (Read the executive summary.)
    • Women of color have consistently been paid inequitably, with Black women paid 76 cents on the dollar in our most recent data.

    CUPA-HR research also digs down into sectors of the higher ed workforce in terms of composition and pay. Recent research reports include:

    • The Higher Education Financial Aid Workforce: Pay, Representation, Pay Equity, and Retention (read now)
    • Representation and Pay Equity in Higher Education Faculty: A Review and Call to Action (read now)
    • Higher Ed Administrators: Trends in Diversity and Pay Equity From 2002 to 2022 (read now)
    • The Higher Ed Admissions Workforce: Pay, Diversity, Equity, and Years in Position (read now)

    Fostering Inclusion

    Long-term solutions to a more representative and equitably compensated workforce include adopting inclusive hiring and retention strategies, analyzing and auditing both compensation and promotion practices, and enacting policies that support your employees’ well-being. In these resources, we offer best practices and data-driven recommendations for a more equitable future.



    Source link

  • As Effective Date for Biden FLSA Overtime Rule Nears, Opposition Mounts – CUPA-HR

    As Effective Date for Biden FLSA Overtime Rule Nears, Opposition Mounts – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 18, 2024

    On July 1, the first phase of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)’s new overtime rule goes into effect. The initial phase of the rule will require employers to pay most white-collar employees a salary of at least $43,888. If employers fail to do so, those employees will be entitled to overtime pay under federal law. As the rule’s effective date approaches, opposition has mounted, with plaintiffs filing three lawsuits challenging the rule, including one filed by the state of Texas requesting that the court delay the July 1 effective date. Additionally, several Republican members of the U.S. House and Senate have introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution aimed at blocking the rule.

    Background

    On April 23, 2024, DOL issued a final rule to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. The FLSA requires employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage (currently $7.25) for each hour worked and 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked over 40 in one week. However, the FLSA contains various exemptions to these overtime pay requirements, including one for white-collar employees. White-collar employees are considered “exempt” if they satisfy a three-part test: (1) the employee must be paid on a salary basis (that is, paid the same amount each week regardless of hours worked), (2) the employee’s salary must meet a minimum threshold (currently $35,568) established by DOL, and (3) the employee’s primary duties must be consistent with being an executive, administrative or professional employee. The final rule will increase the minimum salary threshold from $35,568 to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. Thereafter, the rule requires automatic increases to the threshold every three years based on a set formula.

    Lawsuits

    On May 23, a group of 13 local and national associations and Texas businesses filed the first lawsuit in federal court in Texas challenging DOL’s rule. The suit claims that the salary threshold that goes into effect on January 1, 2025, is so high it will result in more than 4 million individuals being denied exempt status, even though these individuals could be reasonably classified as exempt based on their duties, and in doing so, the rule violates both the statutory language of the FLSA and prior court decisions. The suit also challenges the automatic updates.

    On June 3, two additional lawsuits challenging the overtime final rule were filed by a software company in Texas, as well as the state of Texas itself. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs make arguments similar to those in the lawsuit filed in May, stating that DOL lacks authority to implement the changes provided in the final rule. The state of Texas also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that seeks to block the final rule from going into effect on July 1.

    While it may take the courts several months to issue decisions on the validity of the rule, the judge could decide whether to grant the state of Texas’s motion for a TRO before the July 1 effective date. The TRO would block the rule from going into effect until the court decides whether or not the rule is valid. More updates will be provided via CUPA-HR Washington Insider Alert emails as decisions are released.

    Congressional Review Act Resolution

    On June 3, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) introduced CRA resolutions in the House and Senate to block the overtime final rule from going into effect. Unlike traditional legislation, CRAs require only a simple majority in both chambers to pass (as compared to the usual 60-vote threshold to bypass a filibuster needed in the Senate).

    Though House Republicans have the majority, it is unclear if and when the CRA will be brought to the floor for a vote, given the minimal concern with the July 1 effective date from the business community. In the Democrat-controlled Senate, the path for a floor vote seems even more uncertain as Senate Democrats do not appear to support the efforts to overturn the final rule. As such, it seems unlikely that Congress will pass the CRA to overturn the final rule this session.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor for and keep members apprised of any major updates relating to the FLSA overtime regulations.



    Source link

  • Congress Introduces Legislation on Employee Classification of Student-Athletes – CUPA-HR

    Congress Introduces Legislation on Employee Classification of Student-Athletes – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 18, 2024

    On June 13, the House Education and Workforce Committee voted to advance H.R. 8534, the Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act. The bill would prohibit student-athletes from being classified as employees under federal and state labor laws and regulations due to their participation in intercollegiate athletics.

    The bill was introduced on May 23 by Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) and 10 House Republicans. If enacted, the bill would prohibit student-athletes from being classified as employees at institutions of higher education, athletic conferences or athletic associations (such as the NCAA). In effect, the legislation would prohibit student-athletes from being classified as employees under federal labor laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as well as state laws and regulations determining employment classification.

    Throughout the Biden administration’s first term, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued significant guidance and decisions with respect to the classification of student-athletes as employees. In September 2021, the NLRB’s general counsel issued a memorandum asserting the agency’s position that student-athletes are considered employees under the NLRA. The memorandum was followed by an NLRB complaint filed against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA for allegedly misclassifying USC’s men’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees. Additionally, in March 2024, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union, after a regional NLRB director determined that players on the team are employees under the NLRA using the board’s general counsel memorandum.

    The bill passed out of committee by a partisan vote of 23-16, only gaining support from Republicans on the committee. The bill now awaits a full House vote, where Republicans can pass the bill with a simple majority. The fate of the bill is more uncertain in the Senate, as it is unlikely that it will gain enough support from Democrats to bypass the 60-vote filibuster. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates relating to this bill and employee classification of student-athletes generally.



    Source link

  • Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 17, 2024

    Updates:
    On June 17, a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky issued a second preliminary injunction against the Title IX rule, blocking the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia.

    On June 24, the Biden administration filed a notice of appeal for the preliminary injunction granted in the Western District Court of Louisiana to block the Title IX final rule from going into effect on August 1, 2024. The appeal will be filed in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The preliminary injunction remains in effect until the 5th Circuit Court issues a decision. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this appeal as well as the status of the second preliminary injunction granted in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky.

    On July 2, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Kansas issued a third preliminary injunction to block the Biden administration’s Title IX rule from taking effect on August 1. The preliminary injunction applies to four states: Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. The preliminary injunction also applies to schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty attend, even if the state in which the school is located is not challenging the rule or is not included in another preliminary injunction. The Title IX rule is now blocked from being enforced beginning on August 1 in a total of 14 states, as well as over 360 institutions in 24 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico that are not suing the Biden administration over the Title IX rule.

    On July 11, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to block the Department of Education from implementing and enforcing its Title IX final rule. The vote is largely symbolic as the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the measure and President Biden would veto the resolution if it ended up on his desk.

    On July 11, a federal judge in the Northern District Court of Texas granted a fourth preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1 in the state of Texas. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect in 15 states.

    On July 24, a federal judge from the Eastern District Court of Missouri issued another preliminary injunction to block the Title IX rule from taking effect in six more states. The states included in this decision were Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1 in a total of 21 states.

    On July 31, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Oklahoma granted a preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1. Additionally, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, overturning a lower court’s previous decision to deny the preliminary injunction in those states. There are 26 states in which the Title IX rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1.

    On June 13, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction on the Department of Education (ED)’s recent Title IX final rule. The order blocks the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho until a final decision has been issued by the judge on a lawsuit challenging the validity of the final rule.

    ED’s Final Rule and Subsequent Lawsuits

    In April, ED released its highly anticipated final rule to amend the Title IX regulations. Notably, the final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. Soon after it was published, several lawsuits were filed by states and advocacy groups challenging ED’s decision to expand Title IX protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. 

    Judge’s Order

    In the order to grant a preliminary injunction, the federal judge asserted that the Title IX rulemaking is “contrary to law” and “exceeds statutory authority,” especially with the expanded protections for transgender students. Specifically, the judge explained that Congress intended to protect biological women from discrimination when enacting Title IX, and that “enacting the changes in the final rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX.”

    As a result, ED is blocked from enforcing the final rule in the four states listed in the order, and the final rule will not take effect on August 1 in those four states until further orders are issued by the court.* The judge will now consider the lawsuit challenging the final rule and decide to either uphold or strike down the rule. A final decision may take months or a year or more to be released, as any decision is likely to be appealed to a higher court. In the meantime, CUPA-HR encourages HR leaders in the states impacted by this preliminary to work with their institution’s general counsel on best practices for navigating Title IX compliance.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the legal challenges against the Title IX final rule.

    * Over two dozen states have joined lawsuits challenging the Title IX final rule. Though the order in this blog post applies only to Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho, decisions for the additional lawsuits could result in similar injunctions for other states.



    Source link