Tag: Issues

  • USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR

    USCIS Issues Final Immigration and Naturalization Fee Rule Effective April 1 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 1, 2024

    Important Update: We wish to clarify an important aspect regarding the USCIS final fee rule’s exemptions/reduced fees for nonprofit organizations. The rule specifies that the exemption/reduced fees apply to entities classified under the 501(c)(3) category, as per the Internal Revenue Code. This classification may not encompass many public universities and colleges, which, while tax-exempt, are generally not designated as 501(c)(3) organizations. We are aware of the confusion this may cause within the higher education community and are working with other higher education associations to seek clarification from USCIS.

    On January 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a final rule to adjust certain immigration and naturalization benefit request fees, resulting in significantly higher fees for employment-based petitioners, with notable reductions and exemptions for certain higher education employers. USCIS claims that the increased fees, which will apply to any benefit request postmarked on or after April 1, 2024, will “allow USCIS to recover a greater share of its operating costs and support more timely processing of new applications.”

    Background

    Unlike other government agencies that receive the majority of their funding through congressional appropriations, USCIS receives approximately 96 percent of its funding from filing fees. The agency, after its last fee adjustment in 2016, conducted a fee review that revealed these fees were inadequate to meet the agency’s operating costs. This assessment led USCIS to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in January 2023, which included substantial increases to various employment-based filing fees, including up to 200 percent increases for some petitions. In response to the proposal, CUPA-HR joined comments which addressed higher ed-specific concerns with the proposal including the impact the increased fees would have had on international scholars and institutions’ ability to hire nonimmigrant workers, including H-1B workers.

    Final Rule Details

    While the final rule is nearly 330 pages long and has significant implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, this blog post focuses on the notable changes from the proposed rule to the final rule that have the most significant implications for higher ed employers.

    The proposed rule introduced a new fee to fund the Asylum Program with employer petition fees. The fee is $600 to be paid by any employer who files either a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. In the latest rule, USCIS finalized this fee but exempted the Asylum Program Fee for nonprofit petitioners that meet the Internal Revenue Code’s specific 501(c)(3) classification, resulting in a $0 fee for those entities. While the comments CUPA-HR signed onto requested that higher ed be exempt from the fee, based on precedents like the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1988, which exempted certain fees for colleges and universities, there is confusion regarding this exemption’s applicability to some public universities and colleges, as many do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification.

    In addition to the new Asylum Program Fee, USCIS is implementing the following changes to employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees:

    • Fee changes for visa classifications on Form I-129 and Form I-140: USCIS is imposing different fees for each visa classification sought on the Form I-129 nonimmigrant worker petition, replacing the uniform $460 Form I-129 filing fee across all classifications.
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for H-1B workers: USCIS had proposed a 70 percent increase in the filing fee, from $460 to $780. In the final rule DHS did not increase the filing fee for nonprofits so it is still $460 (0 percent increase).
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for L-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 201 percent increase from $460 to $1,385. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $695 (51 percent increase).
    • Fees for I-129 Petitions for O-1 workers: USCIS had proposed a 129 percent increase, from $460 to $1,055. In the final rule USCIS set the fee for nonprofits at $530 (15 percent increase).
    • A full fee schedule can be found in Table 1 of the preamble to the final rule.

    In addition to the aforementioned changes, USCIS finalized its proposal to revise the premium processing timeframe interpretation from calendar days to business days. Currently, premium processing allows petitioners to receive an adjudicative action on their case within 15 calendar days. Changing the interpretation to business days will add nearly a week to the existing adjudication time.

    Update on Clarification Efforts by Higher Education

    In response to the USCIS final fee rule’s reliance on the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a nonprofit organization, specifically 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), higher education associations are actively seeking clarification from USCIS. These efforts aim to understand how the fee adjustments will impact public universities and colleges that do not fall under the 501(c)(3) classification. The goal is to ensure that the unique status of higher education institutions is recognized and adequately addressed in the implementation of the fee rule.



    Source link

  • Department of Labor Issues Independent Contractor Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    Department of Labor Issues Independent Contractor Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 11, 2024

    On January 10, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published the highly anticipated rule modifying the test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The final rule rescinds the current “core factors” method for determining independent contractor status under the FLSA and implements a return to a “totality-of-the-circumstance analysis.”

    Under the final rule, the method of determining worker classification will use a totality-of-the-circumstance analysis of multiple factors in an economic reality test, including the following six factors.

    • The extent to which the work is integral to the employer’s business.
    • The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill.
    • The investments made by the worker and the employer.
    • The worker’s use of skill and initiative.
    • The permanency of the work relationship.
    • The degree of control exercised or retained by the employer.

    Under the final rule, any particular factor could be determinative in establishing a worker’s classification, and additional undefined factors may be relevant in the analysis as well. The final rule is therefore a significant departure from the previous rule finalized in 2021, under which two core factors primarily guided worker classification determinations.

    The WHD has established March 11, 2024, as the effective date of this new rule, meaning institutions will need to be in compliance by then. The rule is likely to be challenged in federal court by business groups, and legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have indicated they will introduce resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act in an attempt to nullify the final regulation. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any new updates as it relates to the status of this final rule.



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Joint Employer Final Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released its final rule amending the standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The rule replaces the board’s 2020 final rule on the same issue and greatly expands joint employer status under the NLRA.

    The final rule establishes joint employer status of two or more employers if they “share or co-determine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment,” such as wages, benefits and other compensation; work and scheduling; hiring and discharge; discipline; workplace health and safety; supervision; and assignment and work rules. Today’s final rule finds that either indirect control or reserved control may stand alone as sufficient for finding that a joint employer relationship exists. The final rule specifically states that an entity may be considered a joint employer if it possesses the authority to control one or more essential terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that authority is exercised, or if it exercises the power to indirectly control one or more terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether that power is exercised directly. This is a departure from the 2020 rule, which found that an entity must exercise substantial direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment to be considered a joint employer.

    Joint employment has recently been a focal point for higher ed institutions as disputes around the worker classification of student-athletes continue. Last year, an NLRB regional office announced it would be pursuing a complaint by a student-athlete advocacy group that filed an unfair labor practice charge against that the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA, alleging that the three entities are joint employers who violated the NLRA by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ non-employees.” The case is set to be heard by an administrative law judge in November, but a final decision could take years to come to fruition.

    This final rule could have significant implications for private institutions, as they fall under the NLRB’s jurisdiction. Public institutions are not impacted by this rulemaking, as the NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public entities.

    CUPA-HR is assessing the final rule and will provide members with more information as it becomes available.



    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published new proposed guidance for employees and employers on navigating and preventing workplace harassment. “Enforced Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” highlights and upholds existing federal employment discrimination laws and precedence, such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

    The Updated Guidance

    The proposed enforcement guidance provides an overview and examples of situations that would constitute workplace harassment. Of particular interest are provisions included that reflect new and existing protections from harassment under federal laws and precedence, as well as emerging issues surrounding the workforce. The guidance discusses the following notable provisions for consideration:

    • Pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. The guidance states that sex-based harassment includes harassment revolving around pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, all of which are protected under federal laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the recently enacted PWFA.
    • Sexual orientation and gender identity. The guidance provides several examples of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which is considered sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.
    • Virtual and online harassment. The guidance states that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile environment, providing examples such as harassing comments made during remote calls or discriminatory imagery being visible in an employee’s workspace while in a work-related video call. Additionally, the guidance provides examples of conduct on social media outside of work-related contexts that may contribute to hostile work environments if such conduct impacts the workplace.

    In the proposed guidance, the EEOC reminds stakeholders that the final guidance will “not have the force and effect of law” and that such guidance is “not meant to bind the public in any way.” Instead, the document “is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Commission policies.”

    Looking Ahead

    The proposed guidance is open for public comments through November 1, 2023. Once the comment period closes, the EEOC will review all feedback they received and make changes to address the comments prior to issuing a final rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this EEOC guidance, as well as new and existing laws falling under the EEOC’s jurisdiction.



    Source link

  • Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 18, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the Department of Education released a report titled “Strategies for Increasing Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education.” The report was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling against affirmative action in college admissions and it outlines ways institutions and states can adapt to prioritize improved accessibility to educational opportunities for underserved students.

    The Report

    In an introductory message for the report, Secretary of Education Matthew Cardona emphasized the enduring commitment to equal opportunity and student body diversity in higher education on behalf of his department and the president’s administration. While condemning the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action, Cardona pledged the Department of Education’s and the Biden administration’s support in promoting inclusivity and equity and stimulating long-term prosperity.

    The Department of Education’s report centers around four areas that the administration believes institutions should consider when working to promote diversity and opportunity on campus: student recruitment, admissions, financial aid and student retention. The report focuses mostly on promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in these areas to ensure underserved students have an equitable opportunity to be admitted into and succeed in postsecondary programs.

    Relevant to higher education HR, the report discusses the need for improved training of admissions officers and other employees to ensure consistent, equitable evaluations of applicants.

    Moving Forward

    Prior to the release of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, stakeholders also raised concerns regarding the impact such a decision could have on hiring and employment decisions as well as programs or initiatives focused on creating diverse and inclusive workplaces that align with institutional values. The decision to strike down race-based affirmative action in admissions practices could leave employers open to future legal challenges regarding their hiring decisions and other diversity programs.

    CUPA-HR endorses efforts to promote inclusive communities on campuses across the nation. The government relations team continues to track developments impacting these efforts and will inform members of updates as they become available.



    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Protections – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Protections – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 28, 2023

    On August 7, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a proposed rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The proposed rule provides a framework for how the EEOC plans to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA.

    In December, the PWFA was signed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The law establishes employer obligations to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees so long as such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship on the business, and makes it unlawful to take adverse action against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations. The requirements of the law apply only to businesses with 15 or more employees. 

    Purpose and Definitions 

    Under the proposed rule, the EEOC states that employers are required to “provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.” 

    Most definitions included in the EEOC’s proposed regulations follow the definitions provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed rule, however, expands upon the definition of a “qualified employee or applicant” to include an employee or applicant who cannot perform an essential function of the job so long as they meet the following criteria: 

    • Any inability to perform an essential function is for a temporary period 
    • The essential function could be performed in the near future 
    • The inability to perform the essential function can be reasonably accommodated 

    The rule continues by defining “temporary” as the need to suspend one or more essential functions if “lasting for a limited time, not permanent, and may extend beyond ‘in the near future.’” Accordingly, “in the near future” is defined to extend to 40 weeks from the start of the temporary suspension of an essential function.  

    Additionally, the terms “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” include a non-exhaustive list of examples of conditions that fall within the statute, including current or past pregnancy, potential pregnancy, lactation, use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, endometriosis, miscarriage, stillbirth, and having or choosing not to have an abortion. The proposed rule specifies that employees and applicants do not have to specify the condition on the list or use medical terms to describe a condition to receive an accommodation.  

    Reasonable Accommodations 

    The proposed rule states that requests for an accommodation should both identify the limitation and indicate the need for an adjustment or change at work. The rule adopts the interactive process for approving and adopting reasonable accommodations for employees or applicants as implemented under the ADA, meaning employers and the qualified employee or applicant can work together to reach an agreement on an appropriate accommodation. 

    The proposed rule also offers a non-exhaustive list of examples of reasonable accommodations that may be agreed upon during the interactive process. These include frequent breaks, schedule changes, paid and unpaid leave, parking accommodations, modifying the work environment to make existing facilities accessible, job restructuring and other examples.  

    Additionally, the proposed rule introduces “simple modifications,” which are presumed to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose an undue burden in almost all cases. The four simple modifications proposed are: 

    • Allowing employees to carry water and drink, as needed, in the work area 
    • Allowing employees additional restroom breaks 
    • Allowing employees to sit or stand when needed 
    • Allowing employees breaks, as needed, to eat and drink 

    Supporting Documentation 

    The proposed rule states that covered employers are not required to seek documentation to prove the medical condition or approve an accommodation, further stating that the employer can only request documentation if it is reasonable in order to determine whether to grant an accommodation for the employee or applicant in question. Under the regulations, “reasonable documentation” is that which describes or confirms the physical condition; that it is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions; and that a change or adjustment at work is needed for that reason. Examples of situations where requesting documentation may be determined to be unreasonable include when the limitation and need for an accommodation are obvious; when the employee has already provided sufficient documentation; when the accommodation is one of the four “simple modifications”; and when the accommodation is needed for lactation. 

    Remedies and Enforcement 

    The proposed rule establishes the applicable enforcement mechanisms and remedies available to employees and others covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for qualified employees and applicants covered under the PWFA. The rule also proposes several anti-retaliation and anti-coercion provisions to the list of protections granted to those covered by the PWFA. 

    Next Steps 

    The EEOC’s proposed rule marks the agency’s first step toward finalizing PWFA regulations. Although the timing is uncertain, the EEOC will likely aim to issue the final regulations by December 29 — the deadline Congress gave the agency to finalize a rulemaking to implement the law. Notably, however, the PWFA went into effect on June 27, meaning the EEOC is now accepting violation charges stemming from PWFA violations without having a final rule implemented. 

    The EEOC invites interested stakeholders to submit comments in response to the proposed rule by October 11. Comments will be considered by the agency before issuing its final rule for the PWFA.  

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any activity relating to the PWFA regulations.



    Source link

  • NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo on Recent Severance Agreement Ruling – CUPA-HR

    NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo on Recent Severance Agreement Ruling – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 27, 2023

    On March 22, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo to all field offices with guidance on the Board’s recent decision in McLaren Macomb, in which the Board decided that employers cannot offer employees severance agreements that require employees to waive rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), such as confidentiality and non-disparagement requirements. According to the NLRB’s press release, the memo is to be used as guidance to assist field offices responding to inquiries from workers, employers, labor unions and the public about implications stemming from McLaren Macomb.

    The memo offers guidance on the decision’s scope and effect of the McLaren Macomb decision. In the memo, Abruzzo stated that the decision has retroactive application, and she directed employers who may have previously offered severance agreements with “overly broad” non-disparagement or confidentiality provisions to contact employees to advise them that such provisions are now void and will not be enforced. Abruzzo also clarified that confidentiality clauses that are “narrowly tailored” to restricting dissemination of proprietary information or trade secrets may still be lawful “based on legitimate business justifications,” and that non-disparagement clauses that are limited to “employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue (…) may be found lawful.”

    With respect to supervisors, Abruzzo specified that supervisors are not generally protected by the NLRA, but she added that they are protected from retaliation if they refuse to offer a severance agreement with broad non-disparagement or confidentiality provisions to their employees.

    As a reminder, CUPA-HR will be hosting a webinar on the McLaren Macomb decision Thursday, March 30 at 1:00 p.m. ET. The webinar will cover the McLaren Macomb decision and this subsequent memo, and presenters will discuss how the decision may fundamentally change how and when colleges and universities may use confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. Registration is required for participation, but free to all CUPA-HR members.



    Source link

  • NLRB Issues Decision Blocking Certain Provisions in Severance Agreements, CUPA-HR to Hold Webinar – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Issues Decision Blocking Certain Provisions in Severance Agreements, CUPA-HR to Hold Webinar – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 20, 2023

    On February 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its decision in McLaren Macomb deciding that employers cannot offer employees severance agreements that require employees to waive rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), such as confidentiality and non-disparagement requirements.

    The Board explained in its press release on the decision that if an employer offers a severance agreement with a provision that requires the employees to broadly give up their rights under the Act, the employer violates the NLRA. The simple offering of the agreement “is itself an attempt to deter employees from exercising their statutory rights, at a time when employees may feel they must give up their rights in order to get the benefits provided in the agreement.” NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran said “It’s long been understood by the Board and the courts that employers cannot ask individual employees to choose between receiving benefits and exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.”

    McFerran issued the decision alongside NLRB Democratic Members Gwynne Wilcox and David Prouty, while Republican Board Member Marvin Kaplan dissented. The decision reverses two Trump-era NLRB decisions, Baylor University Medical Center and IGT d/b/a International Game Technology. Both of these decisions determined severance agreements with confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions not unlawful in and of themselves.

    Importantly, this decision does not apply to public sector employees as the NLRB only has statutory jurisdiction over private sector employees. Additionally, the ruling does not apply to employees in supervisory or managerial positions.

    CUPA-HR will hold a webinar on this rulemaking and its potential impact on higher ed institutions on March 30, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. ET. Registration is required for participation, but free to all CUPA-HR members. To register, please visit the event’s web page.



    Source link

  • Department of Education’s OCR Issues Resource Documents on Title IX Compliance for Athletic Programs – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education’s OCR Issues Resource Documents on Title IX Compliance for Athletic Programs – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 1, 2023

    On February 17, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued three resource documents on Title IX compliance for school athletic programs. The first resource document covers support for equal opportunity in school athletic programs generally, while the other two cover Title IX and athletic opportunities at K-12 schools and colleges and universities separately.

    According to the OCR, these documents were designed “to help students, parents, coaches, athletic directors and school officials evaluate whether a school is meeting its legal duty to provide equal athletic opportunity regardless of sex,” and they provide examples of situations that may mean a school is not complying with Title IX requirements. The guidance does not make any changes to existing enforcement procedures for the OCR, rather, it is intended to be used by institutions to ensure that their existing protocols and programs are compliant with Title IX.

    Supporting Equal Opportunity in School Athletic Programs

    The first resource document reiterates Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities, including athletic programs, that receive federal funds. It states that Title IX requires schools to effectively accommodate the athletic interests and abilities of their students regardless of sex, and provide equal opportunity in the benefits, opportunities and treatment provided for their athletic teams. It also clarifies that Title IX requires colleges and universities to not discriminate on the basis of sex in the provision of any athletic scholarships or financial assistance to students.

    The resource document included four examples of situations that may surface Title IX concerns at colleges and universities, which are listed below:

    • The men’s teams at a college receives new athletic apparel and gear each year, while the women’s teams must use old apparel and purchase some of their own equipment.
    • Across its entire athletic program, a college awards disproportionately more athletic financial assistance to men than women.
    • A university provides funds for its coaches to recruit athletes for its men’s football and basketball teams because it considers those teams to be “flagship sports.” It provides no funds for coaches to recruit women athletes. As a result, the school has difficulty attracting women to participate in its athletic program.
    • Women are underrepresented in a university’s athletic program compared to their representation in the student body. The university would have to offer 54 additional spots for its women students on existing or new teams for women to have substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities. Women have expressed an interest in having more teams, and there are women students participating in club sports for which there are no varsity teams. Those club sports include lacrosse, water polo, ice hockey and bowling — all of which have intercollegiate competitions available and are sanctioned by the athletic governing body the university belongs to. Yet, the university has not added a women’s team for many years.

    Title IX and Athletic Opportunities in Colleges and Universities

    The resource document designed specifically for institutions of higher education dives deeper into background information on Title IX, as well as ways that students, coaches, athletic directors and school officials can evaluate a school’s athletic program and whether it’s meeting its legal requirements to provide equal athletic opportunity. With respect to the evaluation, the document guides readers with questions and examples of Title IX compliance with respect to the benefits, opportunities and treatment for men’s and women’s teams; athletic scholarships and financial assistance, and meeting students’ athletics interests and abilities.

    Benefits, Opportunities and Treatment for Men’s and Women’s Teams

    With respect to equivalent benefits, opportunities and treatment for men’s and women’s teams, the resource document lists several questions about an institution’s attempts to provide equal opportunities to both men and women student-athletes. These questions surround the following topics:

    • Equipment and supplies
    • Scheduling games and practice time
    • Travel and daily allowances
    • Coaching
    • Academic tutors
    • Locker rooms, fields, courts and other facilities for practice and competition
    • Medical and training facilities and services
    • Housing and dining services
    • Publicity
    • Recruitment

    The resource document explicitly states that if any of the questions listed under these topics is answered as a “no,” it may indicate a possible Title IX violation.

    Athletic Scholarships and Financial Assistance

    The document also creates questions that may be used to assess a school’s provision of scholarships and athletic financial assistance. The questions help guide users to measure the percentage of women and men participants at their institution and the percentage of scholarship awards provided to women and men, and it lists questions and examples to help compare these percentages. These questions may again point to disparities among programs that could be potential violations of Title IX, but the OCR states that it “will take into account all legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for disparities provided by the school” if there are disparities present between percentages awarded to men’s and women’s programs.

    Meeting Students’ Athletic Interests and Capabilities

    The resource document refers to the “three-part test” that institutions may use to demonstrate that all Title IX legal requirements are being fulfilled. Schools are only required to use one of three options to show compliance with Title IX, which are detailed in the document and briefly listed below:

    • Option 1: Substantial Proportionality — This option looks to whether the percentage of women and men participants on athletic teams are about the same as, or “substantially proportionate” to, the percentage of women and men enrolled as full-time undergraduates at your school.
    • Option 2: History and Continuing Practice — This option looks to whether your school can show it has a history and continuing (i.e. present) practice of expanding its athletic program to respond to the interests and abilities of women, if women have been underrepresented, or if men have been underrepresented.
    • Option 3: Interests and Abilities of Students — This option asks whether your school can show that — despite the disproportionality — it is otherwise meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

    The resource document states that following longstanding practice for showing Title IX compliance — if an institution is unable to use any of the three options to show compliance with Title IX — may not be meeting legal requirements to provide equal opportunity to participate in athletics based on sex under Title IX.

    Options for Filing Complaints for Title IX Violations

    Both the general support and higher education-specific documents end their guidance with ways in which students, parents, employees and others in the school community may file Title IX complaints through their school’s grievance procedures if they believe their institution is not providing equal athletic opportunity based on sex. The documents first turn readers to their institution’s Title IX coordinator, but also provides the option to file a complaint online with the OCR. It also clarifies that anyone is able to file complaints with the OCR, which may include individuals outside of the school community.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for any updates to Title IX compliance and will keep members apprised of any updates with respect to Title IX law and regulations.



    Source link

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

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

    by CUPA-HR | March 18, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link