Tag: CUPAHR

  • 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

  • EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Regulations on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Regulations on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 17, 2024

    On April 15, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its long-awaited final regulations and interpretative guidance on the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The EEOC states in its press release that the final rule is intended to offer “important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law.” It provides guidance to employers and workers “about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, and how individuals can request reasonable accommodations.” The regulations will be published in the Federal Register on April 19 and go into effect 60 days later.

    The PWFA, which was signed into law in December 2022, requires most employers with 15 or more employees “to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.” It passed Congress with strong bipartisan support.

    Known Limitations

    Under the regulation, “limitations” include both physical and mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The regulations specify that the definition of a limitation “shall be construed broadly to the maximum extent permitted by the PWFA.” A limitation “may be a modest, minor, and/or episodic impediment or problem” and can be related to current or past pregnancies, potential or intended pregnancies, and labor and childbirth.

    The examples of limitations provided in the rule include miscarriage or stillbirth, migraines, lactation, postpartum depression, and pregnancy-related episodic conditions, such as morning sickness, but the list is not intended to be exhaustive. The limitation may be “a need or a problem related to maintaining [the worker’s] health or the health of the pregnancy,” and it “need not be caused solely, originally, or substantially by pregnancy or childbirth.” Related medical conditions can include conditions that existed before pregnancy or childbirth but are exacerbated by the pregnancy or childbirth.

    The employee or their representative must communicate the limitation to the employer to receive a reasonable accommodation. The employee and employer should engage in an interactive process to determine if a worker’s limitation qualifies for a reasonable accommodation and the appropriate accommodation.

    Reasonable Accommodations

    Under the final rule, “reasonable accommodations” have the same definition as under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They include modifications or adjustments to the application process, to the work environment or how the work is performed, and that allow the employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by similarly situated employees without known limitations. It also includes modifications or adjustments to allow a covered employee to temporarily suspend one or more essential functions of the job.

    The rule provides several examples of reasonable accommodations that may be appropriate under the act. These include but are not limited to additional breaks, allowing the worker to sit while they work, temporary reassignment or suspension of certain job duties, telework, or time off to recover. Leave can be requested even if the employer does not offer leave as an employee benefit, the employee is not eligible for the employer’s leave policy, or the employee has used up their allotted leave under the employer’s policy.

    Reasonable accommodations are limited to the individual who has a PWFA-covered limitation; it does not extend to an individual who is associated with someone with a qualifying limitation or someone with a limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of someone else’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition. The regulations specifically clarify that “time for bonding or time for childcare” are not covered by the PWFA.

    Undue Hardship

    The rule explains that an employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it would cause an “undue hardship,” or a significant difficulty or expense. The rule includes a variety of factors that should be considered when determining if a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship, including the nature and net cost of the accommodation; the overall financial resources of the facility or covered entity; the type of operations of the covered entity; and the impact of the accommodation on operations, including on the ability of other employees to perform their duties or the facility’s ability to conduct business.

    The rule provides several factors to consider when analyzing whether an accommodation involving the temporary suspension of essential functions of the position qualifies as an undue hardship. These include the length of time the employee will not be able to perform the essential function; whether there is work for the employee to accomplish; the nature of the essential function; the employer’s history of providing temporary suspensions to other, similarly situated employees; whether other employees can perform the functions; and whether the essential functions can be postponed.

    Other Provisions

    The rule also encourages “early and frequent communication between employers and workers” in order “to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.” Employers are also instructed that they are not required to request supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation; they should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.

    Controversies Surrounding the Regulations

    While the PWFA was passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support, the EEOC has faced significant pushback about the implementing regulations.

    The EEOC’s delay in issuing these regulations caused considerable frustration from employers. The PWFA went into effect in June 2023, which was when employers were required to comply with the law and the EEOC began accepting claims of discrimination under the act. Without the implementing regulations, however, employers had no certainty as to how to comply, leaving them exposed to potential liability.

    The most significant criticism stemmed from the regulation’s implications around abortion. In fact, of the nearly 100,000 comments the EEOC received in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking on the regulations, over 96,000 discussed the regulation’s inclusion of abortion. The final rule clarifies that “having or choosing not to have an abortion” qualifies as a medical condition under the regulations. Several Republican members of Congress accused the EEOC of using the regulations to further the Biden administration’s pro-choice agenda. EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, however, defended the language, saying it is consistent with legal precedent and the agency’s interpretations of other civil rights statutes under their jurisdiction. The regulation clarifies that employers will not be required to pay for abortions or travel-related expenses for an employee to obtain an abortion. The EEOC specifies they expect the most likely accommodation related to abortion will be leave to attend a medical appointment or recover from a procedure. Several conservative organizations are threatening legal action against the final rule.

    Litigation Challenging the PWFA

    On February 27, 2024, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the House of Representatives lacked a quorum when it passed the PWFA, because over 200 representatives voted by proxy. The Constitution required that a quorum be present for the House to conduct business, but in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the House allowed for proxy voting. The court found Congress violated the Constitution when it passed the law and blocked enforcement of the act against the state of Texas and its agencies. The law is in effect elsewhere in the United States, but other legal challenges may follow Texas’s approach.



    Source link

  • Embracing the Future of HR: Your AI Questions Answered – CUPA-HR

    Embracing the Future of HR: Your AI Questions Answered – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | April 16, 2024

    In his recent webinar for CUPA-HR, Rahul Thadani, senior executive director of HR information systems at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, answered some of the most frequently raised questions about AI in HR. He also spoke to the most prevalent worries, including concerns about data privacy and whether AI will compete with humans for jobs.

    In addition to covering the basics on AI and how it works, Thadani addressed questions about the risks and rewards of using AI in HR, including:

    • How can AI speed up productivity now?
    • What AI tools should HR be using?
    • How well is AI integrated into enterprise software?
    • What are the risks and downsides of using AI?
    • What role will AI play in the future of HR?

    Thadani also put to rest a common fear about AI: that it will replace human jobs. He believes that HR is too complex, too fundamentally human a role to be automated. AI only simulates human intelligence, but it can’t make human decisions. Thadani reminded HR pros, “you all know how complex humans are, how complex decision-making is for humans.” AI can’t understand “the many components that go into hiring somebody,” for example, or how to measure employee engagement.

    AI won’t replace skilled HR professionals, but HR can’t afford to ignore AI. Thadani and other AI leaders stress that HR has a critical role to play in how AI is used on campuses. As the people experts, HR must have a seat at the table in AI discussions, partnering with IT and leadership on decisions such as how employees’ data are used and which AI software to test and purchase.

    Take the First Step

    Most people are just getting started on their AI journey. As a first step for those new to AI, Thadani recommends signing up for a ChatGPT account or another chatbot, like Google’s Gemini. He suggests using your private email account in case you need to sign a privacy agreement that doesn’t align with your institution’s policies. Test out what these chatbots are capable of by using this quick guide to chatbots.

    For leaders and supervisors, Thadani proposes having ongoing conversations within your department, on your campus and with your leadership. Some questions to consider in these conversations: Does your campus have an AI governance council? If so, is HR taking part? Do you have internal AI guidelines in place to protect data and privacy, in your department or for your campus? If not, do you have a plan to develop them? (As a leader in the AI space, the University of Michigan has AI guidelines that provide a good model, and are broken down into staff, faculty and student guidance categories.) Have you identified thought leaders in AI in your office or on your campus who can spur discussions and recommend best practices?

    In HR, “there’s definitely an eagerness to be ready and be ahead of the curve” when it comes to AI, Thadani noted. AI will undoubtedly be central to the future of work, and it’s up to HR to proactively guide how AI can be leveraged in ethical and responsible ways.

    HR-Specific Resources on AI



    Source link

  • White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2024

    On April 10, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the Department of Education’s (ED) final rule to amend Title IX. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect the ED will issue the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as ED publishes the final rule.

    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.

    The Federal Government’s Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda had set the target release date of the final rule for May 2023, but the Department had to further delay that timeline to review all comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and address them in the final rule. Most recently, the ED indicated a March 2024 release of the final rule in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

    CUPA-HR plans to hold a timely webinar on the final rule after publication. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the Title IX final rule, including completion of the review and publication of the rule.



    Source link

  • White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 11, 2024

    On April 11, 2024, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime pay rule. The rule is expected to increase the minimum salary threshold for the executive, administrative and professional (EAP or white collar) employee exemptions to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect DOL will release the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as the final rule is released.

    On April 4, 2024, CUPA-HR’s president and CEO, government relations team and board members met with officials from DOL and OIRA to express our concerns with the September 2023 proposed rule. The proposal sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. DOL also proposed increasing the salary threshold automatically every three years to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers. Finally, DOL proposed that all employers would need to implement these changes within 60 days of the final rule’s release.

    During our OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR reiterated the concerns that were addressed in our comments submitted in November 2023. The comments made the following four recommendations for DOL to consider prior to issuing a final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. If DOL implements an increase, it 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.

    We expect lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of all updates related to the overtime regulations. Once the new regulations are released, we will plan and share registration information for a webinar. We will also provide an update for members who attend the spring conference in Minneapolis next week.



    Source link