Tag: CUPAHR

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

    HR and the Courts — June 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 12, 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.

    Judge Halts Academic Workers’ Strike at Several University of California Campuses

    The University of California has taken legal action against United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents some 48,000 academic workers and graduate students across UC’s multiple campuses. The lawsuit requested an injunction to end the rolling strike at six campuses, which the university contended is in violation of the applicable no-strike contractual provisions. The judge granted the university’s request for a temporary restraining order on June 7, 2024. The order will halt the strike until the judge conducts a hearing over whether to grant a permanent injunction enforcing the no-strike provisions of the applicable labor contract (Regents of the University of California v. UAW Local 4811 (Cal Sup Court, No. 30-2024-01403666-CU-MC-CXC, 6/7/24)).

    This case followed the university’s complaint to the California Public Employment Relations Board alleging that the union had violated the applicable no-strike provisions. The board filed a complaint against the union, arguing it failed to give the university “adequate advance notice” and “failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith,” but declined the university’s request to seek a court order halting the strike.

    Following its exhaustion of all remedies at the state board, the university filed its own state court complaint, seeking to end the strike. The complaint accused picketers of blocking entrances to university property, including hospitals, and illegally occupying buildings. The university argued that the breach of contract endangers lifesaving research at hundreds of laboratories across many campuses. The UAW claimed that the no-strike clause is inapplicable because the university violated state law by calling in police to break up pro-Palestinian encampments on several campuses and allegedly changed workplace rules in response to the protests. The proceedings will continue with a full hearing over whether to convert the restraining order into a permanent injunction further barring the strike activity.

    University of Florida Recruit Sues Over Claimed $13.85 Million NIL Deal — NCAA Proposes Settlement of NIL Class Action

    A former football recruit has sued the University of Florida’s football coach and boosters, alleging they recruited him with the promise of $13.85 million in name, image and likeness payments and then reneged. The complaint, filed in federal district court in Florida, alleges fraud, tortious interference and other claims. The plaintiff alleges that, after the NIL offer, he rejected other lucrative offers only to have the Florida offer “decrease drastically” (Rashada v. Hathcock (N.D. Fla., 3:24-cv-00219, complaint 5/21/24)).

    The plaintiff alleges that, as a 19-year-old college-bound athlete, he was persuaded by a network of university officials and donors to flip on his commitment to the University of Miami, but they never came through on the NIL promises. After the deal never materialized, the plaintiff went to the University of Arizona instead and ultimately transferred to the University of Georgia.

    Separately, the NCAA and the Power Five conferences have proposed a nearly $2.8 billion settlement of the class action claim against them relating to their former ban on NIL payments to student-athletes. If the settlement is approved, the NCAA also agrees that it would no longer attempt to regulate NIL payments, which would be solely up to each college and university to determine and administer (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal., No., 4:20-cv-03919)).

    Court of Appeals to Review Whether Discharge for Refusal to Take Anti-Discrimination Training Is Itself Discriminatory

    The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) will decide whether to affirm a federal trial court’s dismissal of a discrimination claim brought by a White employee. The employee claimed he was discharged in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws for his refusal to take the employer’s mandatory anti-discrimination training, which he claimed was discriminatory. The plaintiff claimed the training was inherently biased against White employees, after admitting he had no knowledge of the contents of the training (Vavra v. Honeywell International Inc. (Case No. 23-02823, oral arg sched 5/21/24)).

    The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s internal emails to the company’s president, which accused the company of “race baiting,” were protected communications. The court further concluded that the plaintiff was not terminated for the communications, but rather because of his refusal to take mandatory anti-discrimination training that was not itself discriminatory. The employer’s diversity, equity and inclusion and law departments had properly vetted the training and concluded it was intended to foster an inclusive work environment.

    U.S. Supreme Court Rejects White Professor’s Claims of Race and Sex Discrimination Filed Against HBCU

    The Supreme Court turned down a request for certiorari and declined to hear a White law school professor’s claim that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had erroneously dismissed her claim of race and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The law professor had claimed that the appeals court erroneously dismissed her claims that she and other female professors were treated poorly in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act and that she was forced to resign from Texas Southern University, a historically Black institution. The court denied the professor’s two petitions for it to hear her case without issuing an opinion (Sacks v. Texas Southern University (Case Nos. 23-891 & 23-1031, Cert denied 5/13/24)).

    The plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to adopt a “totality of circumstances” standard in determining whether her claims of years of “alleged” harassment and continuing violations justified her conclusion that she felt compelled to resign. The plaintiff also complained that the lower court had denied her the right to receive female wage data while requiring her to identify male comparators to make her Equal Pay Act claims. The Supreme Court denied the professor’s request to be heard in the absence of a response from the university, which had waived its right to respond to the professor’s petitions.

    In Employment Law Matter, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Federal Courts Can No Longer Dismiss Federal Lawsuits Subject to Mandatory Arbitration

    The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split among federal appellate courts on whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal trial courts can dismiss rather than stay a lawsuit that is covered by the terms of a mandatory arbitration agreement pending the outcome of arbitration. The 1st, 5th, 8th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have previously allowed dismissal while the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th have ruled that the case must be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

    The case involved a group of drivers who claimed they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to minimum wage, overtime and paid sick leave under federal and state laws. Both sides agreed that the dispute was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement. The 9th Circuit ruled the case should be dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the specific provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act require the courts to stay the action while it is referred to arbitration, pending the outcome of the arbitration (Smith v. Spizzirri (US No, 22-1218, 5/16/24)).

    Texas Sues EEOC Over Guidance Protecting LGBTQIA+ Employees From Sex Harassment Relating to Their Choice of Pronouns and Bathrooms Consistent With Gender Identity

    The Texas attorney general has filed suit in federal court seeking to block enforcement of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent guidance aimed at shielding LGBTQIA+ employees who seek to use pronouns and bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Texas suit alleges that the most recent EEOC guidance goes beyond the statutory limits of Title VII just as the prior EEOC workplace guidance, which was vacated in Texas federal court, did (The State of Texas v. EEOC (N/D. Tex., 2:21-CV-194-Z, Complaint, filed 5/21/24)).

    Separately, a coalition of 18 Republican attorneys general have also filed suit, seeking to block this EEOC guidance and alleging the same legal overreach by the EEOC.



    Source link

  • Celebrating Pride Month: Spotlight on Transgender and Nonbinary Employees – CUPA-HR

    Celebrating Pride Month: Spotlight on Transgender and Nonbinary Employees – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | June 4, 2024

    June is Pride Month, dedicated to celebrating the richness and history of the LGBTQIA+ community. In addition to ensuring regulatory compliance, higher ed HR has an important role to play in creating a truly inclusive campus. A fundamental part of celebrating Pride is actively learning from and listening to this community, especially as the population of LGBTQIA+ employees continues to grow.

    This Pride, CUPA-HR is spotlighting the voices of transgender and nonbinary employees by offering resources to empower HR in improving culture, policies and procedures for this group. Even if significant institutional change is not something you’re in a position to initiate, individual actions can add up. In addition to learning from the below resources, you can network with your colleagues at other institutions to provide support, personally recognize national days of awareness or remembrance, and encourage allyship.

    Inclusion of Transgender and Nonbinary Employees in the Workplace: A Critical Conversation (Watch Now)

    In this webinar, recorded in May, Jon Humiston of Central Michigan University and Aaric Guerriero of the Froedtert Health System explore ways to celebrate and embrace transgender and nonbinary employees.

    They address frequently asked questions about transgender and nonbinary issues, including what terms are commonly used within the LGBTQIA+ community and what happens if you accidentally misgender someone. They also recommend best practices for inclusion, including:

    • Using gender-neutral language. For example, instead of “ladies and gentleman,” Jon suggests “amazing humans,” “everyone,” or “y’all.”
    • Changing paperwork and job descriptions if they mention just two gender pronouns — for example, he or she — to inclusive language like “they.”
    • Sharing your pronouns in your email signature and Zoom profile, so others feel comfortable doing the same.

    Gender-Inclusive HR Strategies: Are You on the Right Track? (Read Now)

    This blog post proposes a framework for higher ed HR practitioners to address their gender inclusion strategies. A checklist of questions will help you audit your efforts on campus, covering: policies and procedures (for example, do you have a name-in-use policy or chosen-name policy that is easy to access and navigate?); programmatic support (e.g., do you have LGBTQIA+ safe-zone training available for all employees?); and visibility (e.g., does your institution have a presence at local LGBTQIA+ pride events?). Reviewing these questions will help you identify gaps in your inclusion efforts.

    Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace (Explore the Toolkit)

    This Knowledge Center toolkit, while not specifically about trans and nonbinary employees, covers legal obligations under Title VII and Title IX and supplies applicable guidelines from the Equal Opportunity and Employment Commission and Office for Civil Rights. Best practices and example policies are also included — for example, on name changes in official forms.



    Source link

  • Frequently Asked Questions From CUPA-HR’s FLSA Overtime Webinar – CUPA-HR

    Frequently Asked Questions From CUPA-HR’s FLSA Overtime Webinar – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 29, 2024

    Reminder for the July 1 threshold update: Lawsuits challenging the final rule are underway. Though such challenges are ongoing, we expect the July 1 salary threshold to withstand legal challenges and to go into effect on that date. Institutions should therefore prepare to implement changes to comply with the July 1 threshold. We will continue to keep members apprised of any new legal updates on the final rule.

    On May 8, CUPA-HR hosted the webinar “How the DOL’s Changes to Overtime Rules Will Impact Campus.” The webinar — presented by Josh Ulman, CUPA-HR’s chief government relations officer, and Laurie Bishop, partner at Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP — provided an overview of the upcoming changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations, including the new minimum salary thresholds and automatic updates that are included in the department’s final rule. Nearly 3,000 people attended.

    During the webinar, CUPA-HR received several questions about the applicability of the final rule’s changes to institutions. To answer these questions, CUPA-HR’s government relations team has put together the following FAQ. We also encourage members to visit CUPA-HR’s FLSA Overtime News and Resources page for more guidance and to discuss potential changes with legal counsel and leadership at their respective institutions.

    Background

    On April 23, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued its final rule to alter the overtime pay regulations under the FLSA. The rule increases the minimum salary threshold to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. The rule also implements automatic updates to the threshold that will occur every three years. Institutions will need to make all necessary adjustments by July 1, 2024, in order to be in compliance with the first increase under the final rule.

    FAQs

    1. Do all exempt workers need to meet the minimum salary threshold requirement?

    Not necessarily. Generally speaking, an employee must satisfy a three-part test to qualify as an executive, administrative and professional (EAP) employee and therefore be exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements: (1) the employee must be paid on a salary basis and paid the same amount each week regardless how many hours they work (unless the employee does not work at all that week), (2) the employee must receive a salary not less than the minimum salary threshold established by DOL, and (3) the employee’s primary duties must involve the kind of work associated with executive, administrative or professional positions.

    Some workers, however, may be “exempt” even though they are paid below the minimum salary threshold. In 2019, DOL issued Fact Sheet #17S, which states that teachers, coaches and “academic administrative employees” that meet certain requirements can be exempt even though they are paid below the minimum salary threshold.

    According to the guidance, teachers need not meet the minimum salary threshold if their primary duty is teaching, tutoring, instructing, or lecturing to impart knowledge, and if they are performing that duty as an employee of an educational establishment. This teaching exemption would include higher ed positions such as faculty, part-time faculty, adjunct faculty and others who primarily engage in teaching while working. Additionally, graduate students and postdoctoral employees whose primary duties are teaching, tutoring, instructing or lecturing may also qualify for the teacher exemption.

    Coaches may also fall under the teacher exemption. As DOL explains, coaches whose primary duty is to “teach” student-athletes how to perform in their sport can qualify for the teacher exemption. The guidance clarifies, however, that coaches whose primary duties are recruiting students would not qualify for the teacher exemption, as their primary duty is not teaching, and are therefore subject to the three-part test used for most other employees.

    DOL also explains that “academic administrative employees” need not be paid the minimum salary threshold if they meet the requirements of a separate exemption test. According to the guidance, “academic administrative employees” are administrative employees whose primary duty is “performing administrative functions directly related to academic instruction or training in an educational establishment.” DOL states that, in order for such employees to be exempt, they must:

    • Satisfy the salary basis and salary threshold tests OR receive a salary of at least the entrance salary for teachers in the same educational establishment, and
    • Have primary duties to perform administrative functions directly related to academic instruction or training in an educational establishment.

    DOL explains that academic administrative employees at institutions of higher education generally include department heads; intervention specialists who respond to student academic issues; and academic counselors that may administer school testing programs, assist students with academic problems, and advise students on degree requirements. As with all exemptions, however, DOL clarifies that exemptions are granted based on the employee’s duties rather than their titles.

    1. Are students/graduate students exempt from overtime pay requirements?

    In Fact Sheet #17S, DOL states that most students that work for their institution are hourly nonexempt workers who typically do not work more than 40 hours per week. However, DOL provides guidance on three types of student workers who may receive salaries or other non-hourly pay. These include graduate teaching assistants, who can fall under the teacher exemption if their primary duty is teaching; research assistants, who DOL says typically have educational relationships when performing research under faculty supervision and do not have employment relationships; and student residential assistants, who DOL states are not generally considered employees under the FLSA, as they are often students enrolled in educational programs and receive reduced room or board charges or tuition credits.

    1. How do the overtime pay requirements apply to part-time workers?

    Part-time workers are required to meet all three tests (the duties test, salary basis test and salary level test) to be exempt from overtime pay requirements. Regardless of full- or part-time status, employees must be paid at least the minimum salary threshold on a weekly basis in order to be exempt from overtime pay requirements. That means that, beginning July 1, 2024, full- and part-time employees must be paid at least $833 per week in order to maintain exempt status, so long as the salary basis and duties tests are also met. The same will be true beginning January 1, 2025, when full- and part-time employees must be paid $1,128 per week per week to maintain their exempt status. It is important to note that the minimum salary threshold cannot be prorated for part-time employees.

    1. How do you determine nonexempt/exempt status for partial-year employment? For example, how do you determine exemption status for employees who work for less than 12 months per year but are paid their salary over a 12-month period?

    According to the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Field Operations Handbook, institutions “may prorate the salary of an otherwise-exempt employee who has a duty period of less than a full year.” For example, an employee who works a nine-month schedule but receives paychecks over a 12-month period may have their checks prorated over the actual period of work (nine months) to determine whether the employee is paid at least the salary threshold.

    Example: An employee who works for nine months (39 weeks) of a year but is paid over a 12-month period receives a salary of $40,000 ($769.23 per week), which would fall below the new July 1 salary threshold of $43,888 per year ($844 per week). Without prorating the salary, it would appear that the employee would need to be classified as nonexempt for failing to meet the minimum salary threshold. However, because DOL allows for employers to prorate the salary of the partial-year employee, the nine-month employee would actually meet the salary level requirement because the prorated weekly salary is $1,025.64 ($40,000/39 weeks), which is well over the July 1 level of $844 per week. As such, the nine-month employee could be classified as exempt, so long as they also meet the salary basis and duties tests. It is important to note, however, that the nine-month employee cannot perform any work outside of the nine-month period if employers choose to prorate their salary to meet the minimum salary threshold.

    1. Can room and board be included in total compensation to meet the salary threshold?

    No. In the existing overtime regulations, DOL specifies that “an [exempt] employee must be compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $684 per week … exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities.”*

    CUPA-HR has historically advocated for the inclusion of room and board in the total compensation considered when determining whether an employee meets the salary level test, and we most recently included this request in our comments responding to the 2023 proposed rule. Despite these efforts, DOL has declined to update the regulations to allow for this. In the 2024 final rule, DOL states that they received comments about granting employers the ability to credit the value of board and lodging towards the salary level, but they declined to address the issue as they view it as outside of the scope of the rulemaking.

    *Note that the $684 per week refers to the current salary threshold. Beginning on July 1, 2024, the new minimum salary threshold will be $844 per week, and beginning January 1, 2025, the new minimum salary threshold will be $1,128 per week.

    1. Can other benefits, such as health insurance, dental insurance and tuition reimbursement, be counted toward an employee’s salary to meet the salary threshold?

    No. Similar to room and board, benefits provided to an employee such as health and dental insurance or tuition reimbursement cannot be counted toward an employee’s salary to meet the salary threshold. These would fall under “other facilities” as included in the regulatory language.

    1. Can institutions provide compensatory time to nonexempt employees in lieu of overtime pay?

    Under the FLSA and its implementing regulations, nonexempt employees at a “public agency” may be compensated with compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay. Fact Sheet #17S explains that a public institution may be considered “a public agency under the FLSA if it is a political subdivision of a state.” To determine whether a public institution falls under the definition of a “political subdivision,” DOL considers “whether the state created the [institution]” or “if individuals administering the [institution] are responsible to public officials or the general electorate.”

    At qualifying public institutions, nonexempt employees may be compensated with compensatory time off at a rate of not less than one and one-half hours for each hour worked over 40 hours in a given workweek. Most nonexempt employees are not allowed to accrue more than 240 hours of compensatory time off, but nonexempt employees who work in public safety, emergency response or seasonal activity may accrue up to 480 hours of compensatory time off.

    1. My institution is in a state where the minimum salary threshold for overtime pay exemptions is higher than that of the federal standards. Does the federal level take precedence over my state’s salary threshold?

    No. The minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FLSA are meant to establish a floor for pay requirements. This means that institutions in states that have minimum salary requirements for overtime exemptions that are higher than the federal FLSA requirements must adhere to the state levels. For example, in 2024, California mandates that employees must earn an annual salary of at least $66,560 to be exempt from overtime pay requirements. This is significantly higher than the July 1, 2024, level established in DOL’s recent final rule ($43,888 per year). In this case, institutions in California must adhere to the state’s level for overtime exemptions.

    1. Will the final rule be challenged in court?

    Yes. On May 23, a group of 13 local and national associations and Texas businesses filed suit in federal court in Texas, challenging the U.S. Department of Labor’s rule setting new minimum salary thresholds for the white collar overtime pay exemptions under the FLSA. 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.

    CUPA-HR will continue to provide regular updates on DOL’s overtime final rule and the court case underway.

    Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog post is to provide additional information from existing guidance, regulations and laws from the federal government on the FLSA overtime regulations. Content included in this blog post does not constitute legal advice. We encourage members to speak with their institution’s legal counsel about appropriate ways to implement changes on their respective campuses.



    Source link

  • Overtime Rule Challenged in Federal Court – CUPA-HR

    Overtime Rule Challenged in Federal Court – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 23, 2024

    On May 23, a group of 13 local and national associations and Texas businesses filed suit in federal court in Texas, challenging the U.S. Department of Labor’s rule setting new minimum salary thresholds for the white collar overtime pay exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

    The final rule of April 23, 2024 increases the minimum salary threshold to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. The rule also implements automatic updates to the threshold that will occur every three years. 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.

    The following are plaintiffs in the case: Plano Chamber of Commerce, American Hotel and Lodging Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, International Franchise Association, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Federation of Independent Business, National Retail Federation, Restaurant Law Center, Texas Restaurant Association, Cooper General Contractors and Dase Blinds.

    CUPA-HR will be following the case closely and provide you with regular updates.



    Source link

  • How Three Institutions Built Winning Retention Programs – CUPA-HR

    How Three Institutions Built Winning Retention Programs – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | May 21, 2024

    New CUPA-HR data show some improvement in turnover in the higher ed workforce, but staffing hasn’t fully bounced back to pre-pandemic levels. Managers still face challenges filling positions and maintaining morale, while employees are seeking jobs where their satisfaction and well-being are prioritized.

    CUPA-HR’s recent webinar offers solutions that may move the needle on employee retention. Retaining Talent: Effective Employee Retention Strategies From Three Institutions brings together HR pros who showcase their high-impact, cost-effective approaches to increasing satisfaction and well-being, including:

    • Professional development programs driven by employees’ interests
    • Effective supervisor-employee communication, including stay interviews
    • Actionable campus climate surveys using liaisons
    • Mentoring programs and leadership pipelines
    • Recognition programs and community-building events
    • Employee Resource Groups to enhance belonging

    Here are some of the highlights from their programs.

    Stay Interviews at Drake University

    A stay interview is a structured, informal conversation between an employee and a trained supervisor — and can be key to retaining top talent. Maureen De Armond, executive director of human resources at Drake, considers stay interviews to be a critical tool that nevertheless go underused in higher ed. Overall, only 8% of employees stated that they participated in a stay interview in the past year, according to The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey.

    De Armond stresses that stay interviews can build trust, increase communication, and show that you care about employees as people, not just their job performance. If you’re looking to get started, De Armond recommends checking out the Stay Interviews Toolkit.

    Actionable Climate Surveys at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

    What’s worse than not conducting a climate survey? Not doing anything with the answers employees have taken the time to provide, says Nicole Englitsch, organizational development manager at UTRGV. To make surveys actionable, they’ve enlisted campus climate liaisons.

    These liaisons, who are mostly HR professionals, are assigned to specific departments. The liaisons have been trained by their external survey partners to help their departments understand the results and engage in action planning, guided by a three-year timeline. This network of partners helps ensure that UTRGV’s goals of making survey results both transparent and actionable are achieved.

    For more on their employee engagement and retention efforts, see Building Leaders From Within: UT Rio Grande Valley Blends Leadership Development With a Master’s in Higher Ed Administration.

    Recognition and Community-Building at Rollins College

    How can institutions create a culture of belonging and valuing employees? David Zajchowski, director of human resources at Rollins, explains how their high-impact recognition and community-building programs range from informal coffee-and-doughnuts gatherings to special awards ceremonies for employees.

    Probably the most popular way of valuing employees while increasing connection is Rollins’s annual Fox Day. On a random day in spring, the president surprises employees and students with a day off from work and class to participate in community-building college traditions.

    Despite the effectiveness of employee recognition, many employers may be leaving this low-cost retention incentive on the table, as only 59% of higher ed employees said they received regular verbal recognition for their work in the Employee Retention Survey. Wondering how your employee recognition program stacks up? See a comparison of recognition programs and take a self-assessment here.



    Source link

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

    HR and the Courts — May 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 14, 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.

    Unions Representing Student Employees File Unfair Labor Practice Charges Related to Student Protests

    Nearly 30 unions representing more than 100,000 student workers at 58 campuses throughout the country have issued a joint letter supporting protesting students and condemning violent responses to peaceful protests. Unfair labor practice charges have also been filed with the National Labor Relations Board against a small number of private institutions in protest of schools’ enforcement of their rules.

    The NLRB has found in the past that civil rights protests — for example, those connected to the Black Lives Matter movement — are protected concerted activity when they are tied to protesting employer or employment discrimination matters. However, commentators have drawn a distinction related to the Israel-Hamas war protests. While each unfair labor practice case will rise and fall on the specific facts related to the situation, a university enforcing safety rules and cracking down on protests will likely not violate the National Labor Relations Act. Additionally, if a union member participates in a protest unrelated to their employment and violates university rules, the sanctions involved will likely not violate the NLRA.

    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit Against Georgetown University

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an employee-filed Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that Georgetown University had packed its retirement plans with expensive and badly performing investment options.

    The lawsuit further alleged that Georgetown had offered its faculty and staff retirement plans with too many investment options and retained multiple recordkeepers, which drove up the administrative costs of the plans. A federal district court judge dismissed the amended complaint in April 2023, ruling that the amended complaint did not address the concerns that led to the dismissal of the original complaint.

    The Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that the original complaint failed to plead any adequate claims and the proposed amended complaint was futile as it did not cure the problem (Wilcox et al. v. Georgetown University et al. (Case no. 23-7059, DC Cir. 4/23/24)).

    Student-Athlete NLRB Unionization Decisions May Modify Taxability of Athletic Scholarships

    Although the NLRB’s decision in the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team case is under review, if the board affirms the decision that players are employees and can unionize, it could ultimately cause the IRS to rethink its current position that student-athletes receiving scholarships are not employees for purposes of the tax code. This could possibly include a change in the current position that these scholarships are not taxable as income.

    If the NLRB affirms the regional director’s decision, which many commentators conclude is likely given its composition under the Biden administration, the decision is not binding for the IRS. The IRS has independent authority to conclude whether these student-athletes are employees and are receiving taxable compensation in the form of scholarships under the Internal Revenue Code. Separately, the courts are wrestling with the question of whether student-athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and are entitled to minimum wage and overtime. We will keep following these issues as they unfold.

    IRS Giving More Scrutiny to Tax-Exempt Status of Name, Image and Likeness Payments to Student-Athletes From Booster Donations

    Bloomberg reports that the IRS has begun revoking and not granting 501(c)(3) status to some groups formed to collect money from boosters to fund name, image and likeness payments to student-athletes. In testimony before the Senate finance committee, the IRS commissioner stated that they are scrutinizing those NIL groups that are not operating for tax-exempt purposes. These collectives have raised millions of dollars from boosters who generally expect those gifts to be tax deductible. For specific tax guidance, a tax professional should be consulted on questions arising in this area.

    U.S. Supreme Court Rules Job Transfers Can Violate Title VII and Other Anti-Discrimination Statutes

    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on the issue of whether a plaintiff must prove significant harm to state a claim of discrimination under the applicable anti-discrimination statutes because of a job transfer. The court reversed the holdings of some circuit courts of appeal that “significant harm” must be stated to state a claim of job discrimination resulting from a job transfer.

    Nonetheless, the Supreme Court stopped short of eliminating the harm requirement entirely. The court held that a plaintiff must show that the transfer resulted in some level of injury or harm, concluding that the statute does not require by its terms the high bar of “significant” harm (Muldrow v. St. Louis (U.S. Case No. 22-193, 4/17/24)). The concurring justices, who did not dissent, argued that the change from significant harm to some other lower level of harm was confusing and would lead to further inconsistent litigation.

    NLRB Reports 10% Rise in Case Load in First Half of Fiscal Year 2024

    The NLRB reports that case filings of unfair labor practice charges or union representation votes rose 10% during the first half of fiscal year 2024 compared to the same period in the previous fiscal year. Union election petitions rose by 35% during this period, and unfair labor practice charges rose by 7%. The NLRB has jurisdiction over private institutions of higher education and has no jurisdiction over state-based public institutions. State public institutions are generally subject to state labor boards and state statutes with separate, but often parallel, rules. This uptick in private employer unfair labor practice charges and election petitions will likely be accompanied by an increase in activity by public-sector unions at public institutions of higher education.



    Source link

  • Department of Education Issues Guidance on Discrimination Policies Under Title VI – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Issues Guidance on Discrimination Policies Under Title VI – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 13, 2024

    On May 7, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to offer guidance on schools’ responsibilities to prevent and rectify discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. The guidance aims to provide examples to institutions to help them carry out their Title VI requirements.

    In its letter, OCR explains that it has received an increase in complaints alleging discrimination based on race, color, or national origin at colleges and universities, as well as public reports of such discrimination. While it does not explicitly state that the guidance is in response to reports of antisemitism on campuses and protests regarding the Israel-Hamas war, the department emphasizes in the letter that Title VI’s “protections extend to students and school community members who are or are perceived because of their shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, Sikh, South Asian, Hindu, Palestinian or any other faith or ancestry,” and that “Title VI’s protections against discrimination based on race, color and national origin encompass antisemitism.”

    Additionally, the letter addresses First Amendment considerations, as well as two legal frameworks used by OCR and courts to assess whether schools have violated Title VI through discrimination: hostile environment and different treatment. The guidance illustrates nine examples that may prompt OCR to investigate an institution for possible Title VI violations within these two frameworks. Of particular importance for higher ed HR are the instances outlined in the letter when educators and other faculty members might engage in actions constituting harassment under Title VI, as well as schools’ obligations to address such incidents.

    As OCR notes, the guidance lacks the authority of law and does not impose obligations on the public or establish new legal standards. Instead, its purpose is to provide clarity to institutions receiving federal financial assistance regarding their requirements under Title VI. CUPA-HR will continue to share resources regarding institutions’ obligations to address discrimination under federal law.



    Source link

  • More Than Half of Financial Aid Employees Likely to Seek Other Employment Within the Next Year – CUPA-HR

    More Than Half of Financial Aid Employees Likely to Seek Other Employment Within the Next Year – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 13, 2024

    A majority of those who work in financial aid at the nation’s colleges and universities are job hunting, according to new research from CUPA-HR and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA). What are they looking for? Better pay, opportunities to work remotely and a more flexible schedule.

    A new report examining pay, pay equity, staffing, representation and retention in the higher ed financial aid workforce outlines several findings from analyses of data of financial aid employees from CUPA-HR’s 2022-23 higher ed workforce surveys and the 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey. Positions included in the analyses are chief student financial aid officers, deputy heads of financial aid and student financial aid counselors.

    The analyses found that more than half (56%) of financial aid employees are at least somewhat likely to seek other employment opportunities within the next 12 months, with 1 in 3 (33%) being likely or very likely to do so. Four in 5 (79%) rank a pay increase as one of the top three reasons they would seek other employment opportunities, while 3 in 5 (59%) rank an opportunity to work remotely as one of the top three reasons they would seek other employment opportunities. The desire for a flexible schedule is also ranked as a top reason for seeking other employment by nearly 2 in 5 (37%) financial aid employees.

    Other Findings

    • Institutions with the highest number of FAFSA applications have far more student financial aid counselors than institutions with the lowest number of FAFSA applications. At each increase in FAFSA application quartile, the median number of student financial aid counselors per institution doubles (or nearly doubles). Institutions with the greatest number of FAFSA applications on median have six more student financial aid counselors than institutions with the least number of FAFSA applications.
    • On median, institutions have four financial aid employees working in one of the three examined positions. Thirteen percent of institutions have a one-person financial aid office. Even the institutions that process the lowest number of FAFSA applications tend to have need for more than one person working in their office – over half of these institutions have at least three people in their financial aid office.
    • The representation of people of color declines as the level of financial aid position increases. The representation of people of color is almost two times higher among student financial aid counselors than among chief student financial aid officers. The representation of women overall among chief student financial aid officers is lower than the representation of women within the lower-level financial aid positions, but the difference is much smaller than the declines seen for people of color.
    • Pay equity is lower among chief student financial aid officers than among lower-level financial aid positions. Black women and Hispanic or Latino men are paid equitably within student financial aid counselor and deputy head of student financial aid positions, but not within the chief student financial aid officer position. At each increase in position level, White women’s pay relative to White men in the same position decreases. White women are paid equitably to White men in student financial aid counselor positions but are paid only 94 cents per $1 paid to White men in chief student financial aid officer positions.
    • Among financial aid employees, years in position is lowest among student financial aid counselors. Of all financial aid positions, student financial aid counselors have the highest concentration of people who have been in their position for fewer than two years (43%). Retention is better among deputy heads of student financial aid and chief student financial aid officers; one-third have been in their position for 10 years or longer.

    Read the full report, The Higher Education Financial Aid Workforce: Pay, Representation, Pay Equity, and Retention, and explore the interactive graphics.



    Source link

  • Voluntary Turnover in the Higher Ed Workforce Is Trending Downward – CUPA-HR

    Voluntary Turnover in the Higher Ed Workforce Is Trending Downward – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 8, 2024

    The workforce retention challenges higher education has been experiencing post-pandemic might just be letting up. A recent trend analysis of turnover data collected in CUPA-HR’s annual higher education workforce surveys found that in 2023-24, voluntary turnover rates for faculty and staff trended downward for the first time in three years.

    CUPA-HR began collecting turnover data in 2017-18. In the three years prior to the pandemic, there was little variability year to year in voluntary turnover (voluntary separations not due to retirement), and in the year immediately following the pandemic’s onset (2020-21), there were slight dips in voluntary turnover for each category of staff and faculty, likely due to the economic uncertainty that characterized that year. However, voluntary turnover trended upward in 2021-22 and again in 2022-23, with the highest voluntary turnover occurring in 2022-23.

    The largest decline in voluntary turnover rates was for part-time non-exempt staff (down 6.4 percentage points, from 21.4% in 2022-23 to 15.0% in 2023-24). However, there were notable declines in voluntary turnover for full-time exempt staff and full-time non-exempt staff as well.

    Findings on Overall Current Turnover

    • In considering turnover from all types of separations (i.e., voluntary and involuntary), overall turnover of faculty and staff combined in 2023-24 was 14%. Turnover in 2023-24 was higher than pre-pandemic rates (approximately 12%), but lower than the 16% high of 2022-23.
    • In 2023-24, overall turnover was highest for part-time non-exempt staff (22%) and lowest for faculty (7% for tenure-track and 11% for non-tenure-track faculty).
    • Involuntary turnover rates were highest for full-time non-exempt staff (2.1%) and full-time exempt staff (1.4%). Retirement rates were highest for tenure-track faculty (2.2%) and full-time non-exempt staff (2.0%).

    Explore the Higher Ed Workforce Turnover interactive graphics.



    Source link

  • EEOC Finalizes Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Finalizes Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 8, 2024

    On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued final guidance on workplace harassment and discrimination titled “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.” The guidance clarifies existing employer obligations to address workplace discrimination and aims to assist employers in recognizing, managing and preventing in-person and online workplace harassment.

    Background

    The EEOC administers and enforces Equal Employment Opportunity law to protect workers against workplace discrimination. As such, the EEOC issues guidance to help employers and employees understand their obligations and rights under EEO law to a workplace free from discrimination. In October 2023, the EEOC issued its proposed guidance on harassment in the workplace, in which they provided an overview and examples of situations that would constitute workplace harassment. The EEOC received over 38,000 comments from the public in response to the proposed guidance, which they analyzed to develop the final guidance summarized below.

    Summary of Final Guidance

    The EEOC’s final guidance aligns with and expands upon the proposed guidance and revises previous EEOC workplace harassment and discrimination guidance to address significant legal developments in recent years. Specifically, the guidance includes new overviews of workplace protections against harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which the 2020 Supreme Court Bostock v. Clayton County ruling established as precedent. The guidance also addresses pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions as protected characteristics under the scope of “sex.” Though pregnancy has previously been protected against workplace harassment under laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, recent laws like the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its implementing regulations have strengthened the protections afforded to pregnant workers, necessitating the need for the EEOC to update its guidance.

    In addition to the expanded scope of sex, the EEOC also includes new guidance on potential challenges relating to social media and the workplace. This includes conduct occurring in a non-work-related virtual setting (such as social media platforms or private messaging systems on personal computers or phones) that could impact the workplace. In the guidance, the EEOC provides scenarios in which certain messages shared via private messages on phones or posts shared on social media platforms about employees could create hostile work environments, triggering the requirement for employers to correct the situation.

    In total, the guidance provides 77 examples to explain harassment and discrimination in the workplace, hostile work environments, employer liability and obligations to correct workplace harassment and discrimination, and systemic harassment. As the EEOC noted in the proposed rule, the guidance and its examples “do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way.” Instead, the guidance is “intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.”

    In addition to the guidance, the EEOC also published educational materials for employers and employees seeking direction and support on harassment prevention strategies, including a summary of key provisions, an FAQ for employees, and a fact sheet for small businesses.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of further EEOC guidance on discrimination and harassment in the workplace.



    Source link