Tag: Issues

  • 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

  • DOL Issues Final Rule to Increase Federal Contractor Minimum Wage – CUPA-HR

    DOL Issues Final Rule to Increase Federal Contractor Minimum Wage – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 13, 2021

    On November 24, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a final rule implementing President Biden’s Executive Order 14026 (EO), “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” The rule increases the minimum wage for federal government contractors for workers who work on or in connection with a covered federal contract to $15 per hour beginning January 30, 2022, and requires the secretary of labor to annually review and determine the minimum wage amount beginning January 1, 2023.

    As stated above, the final rule establishes standards and procedures for implementing and enforcing the minimum wage protections of Executive Order 14026. Starting January 30, 2022, all agencies will need to include a $15 minimum wage in new contracts, new solicitations, extensions or renewals of an existing contract, and exercises of an option on an existing contract. Under the EO and final rule, contracts with solicitations issued before January 30, 2022, and entered into, on or between January 30 and March 30, 2022 will be exempt from the wage. If such a contract is subsequently extended or renewed or an option is exercised under the contract, the $15 minimum wage will apply.

    Covered Contracts

    According to the EO and as finalized in the rule, the $15 minimum wage requirement only applies to the following contracts:

    • Procurement contracts for services or construction;
    • Contracts for services covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA);
    • Contracts for concessions; and
    • Contracts “entered into with the Federal Government in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.”

    The new minimum wage clause will NOT need to be included in:

    • Federal grants;
    • Contracts or agreements with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act;
    • Procurement contracts for construction that are excluded from coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA);
    • Contracts for services that are exempt from coverage under the SCA; and
    • Contracts for the manufacturing of materials, supplies, articles or equipment to the Federal Government.

    Covered Workers

    The WHD defines a covered worker in the final rule as “any person engaged in performing work on or in connection with a contract covered by the EO, and whose wages under such contract are governed by the [Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)], the SCA or the DBA, regardless of the contractual relationship alleged to exist between the individual and the employer.” A worker who performs “on” a covered contract is defined as “any worker who directly performs the specific services called for by the contract’s terms,” and a worker who performs “in connection with” a covered contract is defined as “any worker who performs work activities that, although are not the specific services called for by the contract’s terms, are necessary to the performance of those specific services.”

    One exemption to the rule’s minimum wage requirement is provided for FLSA-covered workers performing work “in connection with” covered contracts for less than 20 percent of their working hours in a given workweek.

    The final rule also clarifies that certain employees who are exempt from the minimum wage protections under the FLSA are also not entitled to the $15 minimum wage protection of the EO and final rule. In an FAQ page on the EO and final rule, the WHD provides “learners, apprentices, messengers and full-time students employed under certificates pursuant to FLSA sections 14(a) and (b)” as examples of individuals who are excluded from the EO’s minimum wage requirements.

    Additional Considerations

    As mentioned above, the secretary of labor will be granted authority to annually review and increase the minimum wage beginning January 1, 2023. The minimum wage will be increased by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers to address inflation.

    Additionally, the EO and final rule change compensation for tipped employees working on or in connection with a covered contract. Beginning January 30, 2022, such tipped employees must be paid a wage of at least $10.50 per hour. By January 1, 2024, the tip credit must be eliminated for such employees, and they must earn the same minimum hourly rate that other covered employees are entitled to.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates and resources to aid institutions as the new minimum wage final rule becomes effective.



    Source link

  • DHS Issues Request for Public Comment on Form I-9 Employment Verification – CUPA-HR

    DHS Issues Request for Public Comment on Form I-9 Employment Verification – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2021

    On October 26, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Request for Public Input (RPI) “seeking comments from employers, employer organizations, employee groups, and other members of the public on document examination practices for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.” 

    The RPI is the agency’s next step in determining whether the remote document examination flexibilities that have been in place since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic should be continued on a permanent basis. Comments are due on or before December 27, 2021.

    Background

    On March 20, 2020, DHS announced employer flexibility guidance to defer the physical presence requirements associated with Form I-9 for 60 days. The guidance allows for remote inspection of Form I-9 documents in situations where employees work exclusively in a remote setting due to COVID-19-related precautions. For employees who physically report to work at a company location on any regular, consistent or predictable basis, employers are required to use standard I-9 procedures.

    The guidance has been extended continuously throughout the pandemic. Issued on August 31, the latest extension to the flexibility guidance was granted through December 31, 2021, following advocacy efforts from CUPA-HR and other stakeholders who expressed a dire need for DHS to maintain the flexibility in light of surging cases of the delta variant.

    Request for Public Input

    The RPI includes a list of questions grouped into two categories: “Experiences with Pandemic-Related Document Examination Flexibilities” and “Considerations for Future Remote Document Examination Procedures.” As DHS considers winding down the flexibility guidance, the RPI will provide the department with important feedback from employers who have conducted remote inspection and “inform and improve DHS policies and processes” regarding “alternative options to physical document examination that offer an equivalent or higher level of security for identity and employment eligibility verification purposes” moving forward.

    The flexibility guidance has been instrumental to institutions of higher education during the pandemic. As such, CUPA-HR intends to engage our members and submit robust comments in response to the RPI. ​Look for more details and your chance to contribute your feedback in the coming weeks.



    Source link

  • IRS Issues Employer Guidance on COVID-19 Paid Leave Tax Credits – CUPA-HR

    IRS Issues Employer Guidance on COVID-19 Paid Leave Tax Credits – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | September 22, 2021

    On September 7, the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2021-53, which includes guidance to employers on reporting the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees for leave taken in 2021 as provided by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

    The FFCRA required private sector employers with 500 or fewer employees to provide emergency paid family and medical leave and emergency paid sick leave to employees who could not work or telework due to certain COVID-19 complications. The FFCRA also established fully refundable tax credits that employers may receive after providing the emergency paid family and sick leave. The tax credits under the FFCRA were set to expire on December 31, 2020, but they were extended to cover wages voluntarily paid through March 31, 2021 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and again through September 30, 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Employers were no longer required to provide the paid sick and family and medical leave wages to employees after the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, but employers that voluntarily provided paid leave that would have satisfied the paid family leave and paid sick leave requirements under the FFCRA were eligible for the same fully refundable tax credits.

    The new IRS notice states that employers will be required to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees between January 1 and September 30, 2021 either on the Form W-2, Box 14, or in a separate statement provided with the Form W-2. The notice also includes model language to help employers communicate information about the qualified sick leave and family and medical leave wages to employees, as well as the impact these wages may have on tax credits the employee may be entitled to with respect to self-employment income.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any additional tax-related guidance from the IRS as it relates to COVID-19 policies and guidance.



    Source link