Tag: CUPAHR

  • 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

  • My Aha Moments From the Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    My Aha Moments From the Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 8, 2024

    This blog post was contributed by Jennifer Addleman, director of human resources at Rollins College and 2024-25 chair-elect for the CUPA-HR Southern Region board.

    Spring had sprung in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the CUPA-HR Spring Conference, where more than 400 higher ed HR pros had the opportunity to connect with and learn from some of the brightest HR leaders in higher education. From three dynamic keynotes to 29 interactive concurrent sessions, the conference provided a platform to engage in meaningful discussions, network with peers and gain valuable knowledge to help navigate the dynamic profession of higher ed HR.

    The conference was full of aha moments, and here are some of my key takeaways:

    • Kris McGuigan, founder and principal owner of Professional Courage, kicked off the conference by sharing tips on leading with purpose and confidence. During her keynote, we had the opportunity to reflect on our own personal values and how they align with change, and reviewed the principle of A.C.E.: acknowledge change, connect to change and embrace failure. Reminding us that there is no perfect time to start, Kris stressed that not changing is still choosing.
    • During the first concurrent session, Washington State University’s Paul Fleming McCullagh and Laura Hamilton shared how they created a professional development program for all employees. “If you can dream it, do it!”
    • Kevin McClure, Murphy distinguished scholar of education and associate professor of higher education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, gave a thought-provoking keynote on creating the “caring university.” He warned against toxic positivity and emphasized that creating a culture of care is a shared responsibility of the entire institution, and we reviewed the U.S. Surgeon General’s framework for mental well-being in the workplace. Kevin also suggested that institutions should humanize policies for real people and not ideal worker norms.
    • The affinity group lunch provided an opportunity for folks to connect with HR professionals who have similar interests and skills. I met HRIS colleagues who shared their challenges and best practices with systems. Data, data, data!
    • Andy Brantley (president and CEO of CUPA-HR), Jazzmine Clarke-Glover (vice president of workplace culture and inclusion at Wagner College), and Helena Rodrigues (senior vice president and chief human resources officer at the University of Arizona) led a roundtable discussion regarding HR’s role in creating inclusive campus communities. How do we reinforce our institutional values by ensuring all employees feel connected and supported? Some comments shared by the group included focusing on outcomes, making your institution a great place to work for everyone, fostering a safe space for challenging conversations, encouraging employees to build relationships, and developing inclusive policies.
    • We had the opportunity to network, connect and sing karaoke at the Punch Bowl Social reception, where I learned that we have some talented singers among our profession!
    • Keynote speaker Amy Wrzesniewski, William and Jacalyn Egan Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, shared her research findings on job crafting and what makes our work meaningful. We were able to take a quiz to determine our career, calling, and job scores and how they impact our job satisfaction. Amy also shared that job crafting is an employee-driven activity but should be supported by managers. I left the session reflecting on the question, how I do I make the job my own?
    • John Whelan, vice president and CHRO at Yale University, and Michael Rask of Aon described the importance of a strategic plan for HR and how it’s like the sails on the organizational sailboat. They warned against committing to things we can’t deliver and shared that folks appreciate change when it is for them and through them, not to them.
    • This was my first time visiting Minneapolis, and I was pleasantly surprised by the art, culture and walkability. Thank you for the hospitality!
    • CUPA-HR continues to provide invaluable resources and conference experiences where everyone is willing to help each other and share their expertise. I feel energized catching up with friends I have come to know over the years and meeting new colleagues who share passion for what we do. Thank you to the CUPA-HR team, sponsors and presenters for a great event.
    • Finally, Andy Brantley summed up the Spring Conference well: “Your work matters. You matter more.”



    Source link

  • DOL Issues Guidance on AI in the Workplace – CUPA-HR

    DOL Issues Guidance on AI in the Workplace – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 8, 2024

    On April 29, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin on “Artificial Intelligence and Automated Systems in the Workplace Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Other Federal Labor Standards.” The bulletin provides guidance on the applicability of the FLSA and other federal labor standards as they relate to employers’ increased use of artificial intelligence and automated systems in the workplace.

    Background

    In October 2023, President Biden released an Executive Order on the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence” and directed agencies across the federal government to take action to address the increased use of AI in all areas of life. With respect to AI in the workplace, the order directed the U.S. Secretary of Labor to “issue guidance to make clear that employers that deploy AI to monitor or augment employees’ work must continue to comply with protections to ensure that workers are compensated for their hours worked, as defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act (…) and other legal requirements.” The Field Assistance Bulletin is the first response from the DOL to the Executive Order’s directive, though additional guidance may be provided in the future.

    Summary of Guidance

    The bulletin discusses existing employer obligations to comply with and avoid penalties under relevant federal labor laws. It also clarifies that the use of AI and other technologies does not absolve employers of their responsibilities to comply with such laws. CUPA-HR’s government relations team has summarized the key points of the guidance below.

    AI and the FLSA

    The guidance highlights employers’ obligations to pay employees at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for every hour worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek. As such, WHD recognizes that employers have implemented AI and other automated systems to comply with these requirements, including implementing systems to help track work time, monitor break time, assign tasks to available workers, and monitor work locations. Additionally, WHD provides examples of AI and other technologies employers use to help calculate wages owed under the FLSA.

    WHD also recognizes that AI has the potential to undercount hours worked or miscalculate wage rates owed to employees. Regardless of the use of AI, WHD states in its guidance that “employers are responsible for ensuring that they are paying employees for all hours worked” under the FLSA and that “employers are responsible for ensuring that the use of AI or other technologies to calculate and determine workers’ wage rates does not cause workers to be paid in violation of” the FLSA and other applicable federal wage standards. As such, WHD suggests that employers exercise human oversight over the technologies to ensure they are not violating the FLSA.

    AI and the Family and Medical Leave Act

    Similar to WHD’s discussion of employers’ obligations to adhere to the requirements of the FLSA, the bulletin provides guidance on employers’ responsibilities to adhere to the requirements of providing Family and Medical Leave Act leave when using AI and other automated systems. WHD once again recognizes that some employers use AI and other tools to process leave requests, determine whether an employee has provided proper certification that supports the need for FMLA leave, or track the use of FMLA leave. As a result, WHD states that employers should oversee the use of AI or automated systems used to implement FMLA leave “to avoid the risk of widespread violations of FMLA rights when eligibility, certification, and anti-retaliation and anti-interference requirements are not complied with.”

    AI and Nursing Employee Protections

    WHD also provides guidance for employers’ use of AI as it relates to nursing employees’ rights to reasonable break time and space to express breast milk while at work, as protected under the FLSA and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act). The bulletin states that, though employers may use AI to track employee work hours, set work schedules, and manage break time requests, any instance in which automated systems “limit the length, frequency, or timing of a nursing employee’s breaks to pump would violate the FLSA’s reasonable break time requirement.” The guidance also states that systems that score productivity and/or penalize workers for failing to meet productivity standards due to pump breaks would violate the FLSA. Finally, they clarify that automated systems that require nursing employees to work additional hours to make up for time spent during pump breaks or that reduce the hours scheduled in the future for workers because they took pump breaks would be considered “unlawful retaliation” under the FLSA. WHD therefore provides that “employers are responsible for ensuring that AI or other automated systems do not impose adverse actions on employees for exercising their rights to pump at work.”

    AI and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act

    The bulletin provides an overview of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) and most private employers’ prohibition from using lie detector tests on employees or for pre-employment screenings. In light of this law, WHD recognizes that AI technologies have been developed to “use eye measurements, voice analysis, micro-expressions, or other body movements to suggest if someone is lying or detect deception.” As such, WHD reaffirms that EPPA prohibits covered private employers from using AI technology as a lie detector test.

    AI and Prohibited Retaliation

    Finally, the bulletin covers protections against retaliatory conduct provided under the FLSA and other laws administered by WHD to employees who have filed complaints about potential violations of their rights. As a result of these protections, WHD states that “the use of AI and other technologies by employers to take adverse action against workers for engaging in protected activities under one or more laws enforced by WHD constitutes unlawful retaliation.” Additionally, WHD clarifies that the use of AI to surveil the workforce for protected activity and to take adverse actions could violate anti-retaliation protections under the FLSA and other laws. As such, WHD reminds employers in the guidance that they are responsible for compliance with anti-retaliation provisions regardless of whether they incorporate AI technology into their business practices.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for additional guidance from federal agencies as it relates to the use of AI in the workplace.



    Source link

  • Living Our Values: Courage, Care and Calling at CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    Living Our Values: Courage, Care and Calling at CUPA-HR’s Spring Conference – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | May 2, 2024

    “Wherever we go, we are CUPA-HR.” That’s what CUPA-HR President Andy Brantley reminded members at the recent Spring Conference in Minneapolis. Though institutions differ in mission and scope and despite daily crises that threaten to divert attention from long-term goals, CUPA-HR members live their values every day.

    The keynote speakers struck a similar theme, encouraging attendees to align their internal values with work, tapping into courage, care and a sense of calling.

    The Courage to Embrace Failure

    In her opening keynote, Kris McGuigan, an author, executive coach and corporate trainer, emphasized the power of authenticity in helping to overcome fear. At some point in our lives, we have all allowed our fears — including of failure, inadequacy and uncertainty — to dictate our future. “How often do we identify that a path is not serving us, but we stay the course, we cling to the status quo?” But clinging to the status quo out of fear can lead to apathy and disengagement. This lack of motivation and confidence can be tied to the engagement crisis at work.

    Facing Down Fear of Failure

    McGuigan believes courageously embracing failure can help move employees past apathy and disengagement. One way to start embracing failure is by taking a cue from tech. In their relentless testing and pushing out new releases, tech adopts a model of “perpetual beta.” This allows for constant innovation, with failure built into the model. If something doesn’t work, it’s scrapped and fixed — think of your smart phone’s frequent software updates. McGuigan asked, how can higher ed leaders bring this model of embracing failure to their teams?

    Takeaway: Having the courage to embrace failure can increase engagement and satisfaction and decrease apathy and disengagement.

    Creating a Caring Campus

    In his keynote, Dr. Kevin R. McClure, Murphy distinguished scholar of education and associate professor of higher education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, drew from his forthcoming book, The Caring University, for which he interviewed staff, faculty and administrators. What he found will likely sound familiar. Higher ed employees were working tirelessly and generously, and frequently sacrificed their physical and mental health for their jobs. Consistent with CUPA-HR’s findings, McClure cited higher ed employees’ primary concerns as overwork, inadequate compensation, lack of recognition for their contributions, and lack of career pathways, among others.

    The Work “Just Kept Coming”

    McClure interviewed one higher ed staff member who said the work “just kept coming.” Her campus leaders talked about care, but there was no structural change to her workload, so she started looking for a new job. Many of his interviewees felt they were required to be superhuman — a worker without a body or personal life — who “exists only for the job.”

    Structural changes are needed in policies and procedures, he emphasized. What happens when practices like service awards and merit pay reward only ideal workers and not real people, or when leave policies don’t account for people’s caregiving or health needs? Employees will disengage and look for jobs elsewhere. HR has a crucial role to play in transforming the workforce, he says, and institutions need to empower HR as experts.

    Takeaway: Structural change is urgently needed to transform higher education into a workplace that values the well-being of its employees.

    Living your Calling Through Job Crafting

    In the closing keynote, Dr. Amy Wrzesniewski shared insights into what makes work meaningful for the individual. In her research, Wrzesniewski, who is William and Jacalyn Egan professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, identifies three main ways people understand their work: as a job, career or calling.

    Out of these, it is people who see their work as a calling who are more satisfied with the work and with their lives, tending to be absent less and engaged more. So how do people come to treat their work as a calling? That’s where “job crafting” comes in.

    Finding Purpose in Work

    Wrzesniewski interviewed members of a cleaning crew in a university hospital. This work is often stigmatized as non-meaningful, but employees who found a calling in the work were engaged in job crafting, often doing a different job than their job description, while still completing their required duties. For example, one cleaning crew member said that she tailored the cleaning schedule around patients who might be sensitive to the smell of cleaning chemicals. She made a tangible difference in the lives of others, even though she risked getting written up for doing so.

    Wrzesniewski argues job crafting has several benefits. It can increase satisfaction and commitment to the job, intensify happiness at work, boost job mobility, and even maintain or increase performance.

    Takeaway: Job crafting — the practice of living out your values by making work your own — can help make a work a calling, not just a job.



    Source link

  • Data Show Women and People of Color Aren’t Advancing to Higher Faculty Ranks at the Same Rate as White Men – CUPA-HR

    Data Show Women and People of Color Aren’t Advancing to Higher Faculty Ranks at the Same Rate as White Men – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 2, 2024

    New research from CUPA-HR on the state of the faculty workforce in higher education shows that despite some growth in representation among tenure-track women and faculty of color in new hires, advancement to higher faculty ranks remains a barrier. What’s more, these promotion gaps are found in every faculty discipline.

    CUPA-HR’s research team analyzed data from the Faculty in Higher Education Survey, a comprehensive data source that collects salary and demographic data by tenure status, rank, and faculty discipline, to evaluate representation and pay equity for women and faculty of color from 2016-17 to 2022-23.

    In addition to the finding that women and faculty of color are not being promoted to senior faculty ranks at the same rate as White men, the data also show that women, Black, and Hispanic or Latina/o faculty are better represented in non-tenure-track than in tenure-track positions, and that pay gaps in non-tenure-track positions persist for these groups. Combined with the fact that these groups are less likely to be promoted to higher ranks in tenure-track positions, the result is that a substantial segment of faculty, primarily women and people of color, are employed in positions that pay lower salaries throughout their careers.

    Other Findings

    Tenure-track faculty positions are on the decline. There has been a decline in tenure-track positions and a corresponding increase in non-tenure-track positions over the past seven years. In 2016-17, tenure-track roles accounted for 73% of faculty, but by 2022-23, this proportion fell to 66%, with a marked increase in non-tenure-track positions over the last two years. Additionally, the percentage of new tenure-track assistant professor hires dropped in recent years, indicating a trend toward more new non-tenure-track hires.

    The representation of women and people of color in tenure-track faculty positions is increasing, yet challenges remain. There was a notable increase in the representation of tenure-track (TT) women and faculty of color from 2016-17 to 2022-23. In 2022-23, more than one-fourth (26%) of TT faculty were people of color. This marks a 28% increase over the span of seven years, compared to 2016-17, when faculty of color constituted closer to one-fifth (21%) of all TT faculty. However, the growth in racial/ethnic representation still lags when compared to the demographic composition of U.S. doctoral degree holders. Further, despite strides toward pay equity for tenure-track faculty of color, White women in tenure-track positions still face persistent pay gaps in 2022-23.

    Explore the interactive graphics and read the full report, Representation and Pay Equity in Higher Education Faculty: A Review and Call to Action.



    Source link

  • DOL Increases Overtime Minimum Salary Threshold to $58,656 in Final Rule, Implements Automatic Updates – CUPA-HR

    DOL Increases Overtime Minimum Salary Threshold to $58,656 in Final Rule, Implements Automatic Updates – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 23, 2024

    On April 23, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued the highly anticipated final rule to alter the overtime pay regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (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 final rule.

    The department clarified that the first increase updates the minimum salary threshold using the department’s current methodology, which was used in the 2019 Trump-era overtime rulemaking to set the current standard of $35,568. The second increase then implements the department’s new preferred methodology, which sets the minimum salary threshold to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest wage census region. This phased-in implementation will likely impact how litigation challenging the rule is both pursued and decided over the next six months.

    In September 2023, DOL issued its proposed rule to update the minimum salary threshold, which sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. The proposed rule also sought to implement triennial automatic updates based on the 35th percentile.

    CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the proposed rule and participated in a meeting with DOL and officials from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to express our concerns with the proposal. In both the comments and OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR made the four following recommendations for DOL to consider before issuing their final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. DOL should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
    3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
    4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.

    Lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will be hosting a webinar on May 8 covering the provisions of the final rule and its impact on higher education. Registration is open and free to all.



    Source link

  • ED Releases Final Title IX Rule – CUPA-HR

    ED Releases Final Title IX Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 19, 2024

    On April 19, the Department of Education (ED) released the text of the highly anticipated Title IX final rule. The final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. The rule also revokes both the Trump administration’s ban on campuses using a single person to investigate and adjudicate Title IX complaints and the Trump mandate regarding cross-examination of complainants. Institutions will need to be in compliance with the final rule by August 1, 2024.

    Background

    The ED released the text of the proposed rule on June 23, 2022, though the Federal Register did not officially publish the proposal until several weeks later on July 12, 2022. The agency received over 240,000 comments in response, including CUPA-HR comments seeking clarification on the overlaps between the ED’s proposal with institutions’ existing obligations to address employment discrimination. CUPA-HR also joined comments led by the American Council on Education.

    Noteworthy Provisions of the Final Rule

    As discussed above, the final rule defines “sex-based harassment” as a form of sex discrimination that includes sexual harassment and harassment based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy or related conditions. The term “pregnancy or related conditions” is further defined in the final rule to include pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, lactation, and all related medical conditions and recovery.

    Additionally, as first introduced in the proposed rule, the final rule establishes new grievance procedures for sex-based harassment complaints. Specifically, the final rule requires institutions to apply two separate grievance procedures for sex-based harassment complaints depending on whether or not students are involved. The first section (§106.45) applies to any complaint of sex discrimination on campus, including employee-to-employee sex-based harassment complaints. The second section (§ 106.46) only applies when a student is involved as either the complainant or respondent (or both), regardless of whether the matter also involves employees. Notably, the second set of procedures also applies where a student is also an employee. The new rules also allow for certain complaints to move through an informal resolution process separate from the grievance procedures listed above if both parties agree to choose to move forward with that process.

    The final rule also imposes several training requirements, which the ED also included in the proposed rule. Under the rule, institutions must train all employees on the institution’s obligation to address sex discrimination under Title IX, the scope of conduct that constitutes sex discrimination under the law, and the notification and information requirements that applicable employees must follow upon learning about instances of sex-based harassment. Additionally, institutions must train individuals who serve as investigators, decisionmakers, and others responsible for implementing an institution’s grievance procedures on the institution’s grievance procedures and how to serve impartially through the grievance procedures. Facilitators of the informal resolution process must be trained on the rules and practices of an institution’s informal resolution process, and the institution must train individuals serving as Title IX coordinators on the requirements of their specific responsibilities throughout the notification, information, and grievance procedure processes as required by Title IX.

    Finally, the rule clarifies that when responding to retaliation, institutions must undergo all procedures for notifying and informing involved parties of their obligations under Title IX and initiate the appropriate grievance procedures.

    Looking Forward

    CUPA-HR’s government relations team is going through the 1,577-page final rule and will provide more information on the rule as needed through CUPA-HR’s blog. Additionally, CUPA-HR will host a webinar to cover the final rule on April 30. Registration is now open and is free for all to attend.



    Source link