Tag: Judge

  • Federal judge throws out Biden’s Title IX overhaul

    Federal judge throws out Biden’s Title IX overhaul

    Updated at 6:30 p.m. Jan. 9

    A years-long effort to change how colleges respond to reports of sexual harassment and discrimination and to expand protections for transgender students is dead after a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Biden administration’s overhaul of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was unlawful.

    The court order vacates the rule nationwide and could create more confusion for colleges as they seek to move forward without running afoul of the federal gender equity law. The Title IX changes were already on hold in 26 states and at hundreds of colleges, thanks to a series of lawsuits from 26 Republican attorneys general. Thursday’s order is the first final ruling in those cases and was part of a lawsuit brought by Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

    Republican lawmakers and state officials celebrated the ruling as a victory for women and girls while advocates for LGBTQ+ students criticized the decision as an attack on transgender students. The Biden rule allowed students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity.

    Chief Judge Danny Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, who previously criticized the rule, wrote in a 15-page opinion that the regulations suffer “significant constitutional infirmities.” For instance, using the wrong pronouns for a student could be considered harassment under the rule. That provision “offends the First Amendment,” wrote Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee.

    “As expected, courts have continued to find it impossible to justify the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX rules eviscerating students’ speech and due process rights,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech and civil liberties advocacy organization.

    The ruling is the latest legal setback for Biden’s higher ed agenda, which hasn’t fared well in federal court.

    ‘Back in Time’

    Colleges and universities will now revert to the previous Title IX rule, which took effect in summer 2020 during the first Trump administration. Those regulations required colleges to hold live hearings with an opportunity for cross-examination to allow those accused of sexual misconduct to confront their accusers—a provision the Biden rules nixed. Additionally, the 2020 regulations defined sexual harassment more narrowly than the Biden Title IX rule.

    “Fitting, I guess—everything’s going back in time four years,” said Brigid Harrington, a higher education attorney at Bowditch & Dewey who focuses on compliance with civil rights laws. “Schools that had been enjoined were already there, so it doesn’t change things for many.”

    Colleges don’t have to throw out all their new policies related to harassment and discrimination; they can keep the parts that don’t conflict with the 2020 rule. For example, under the 2024 regulations, colleges must give pregnant students notice of their rights, and the 2020 rule doesn’t prevent a college from doing so. (Reeves didn’t take issue with the pregnancy provisions but said, “It simply is not proper for the court to rewrite the regulations by excising the offending material.”)

    Thursday’s ruling wasn’t a complete surprise for colleges and universities, considering the injunction and upcoming change in administrations. Andrea Stagg, director of consulting services at Grand River Solutions, a company that works with colleges on Title IX and other issues, said that colleges already have started talking about what to change in their policies and what to keep.

    Still, reimplementing the 2020 regulations will mean retraining and re-educating students, staff and faculty about the changes.

    “It’s very complicated, expensive and exhausting … and folks don’t have the resources,” she said. “For a field that already experiences a ton of burnout … it’s demoralizing to work so hard and then have the rules change on you.”

    Several other lawsuits challenging the rule are still pending, and the Biden administration could appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, so Thursday’s decision may not be the end of the legal battle over Title IX. The Education Department could not be reached for comment Thursday because the offices were closed in commemoration of former president Jimmy Carter’s passing.

    “I don’t think this is the last that we’re going to hear of this,” said Harrington. “I think that civil rights are going to be a big topic for the next four years.”

    A Repudiation or an Attack?

    Republican attorneys general who sued the Biden administration and conservative advocates who criticized the rule celebrated the judge’s decision “as a massive win” and a sign that “common sense is slowly returning.”

    “The court’s ruling is yet another repudiation of the Biden administration’s relentless push to impose a radical gender ideology through unconstitutional and illegal rulemaking,” Tennessee attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “Because the Biden rule is vacated altogether, President Trump will be free to take a fresh look at our Title IX regulations when he returns to office [Jan. 20].”

    President-elect Donald Trump has criticized Biden’s Title IX changes, and many experts expect him to issue new regulations that are more conservative than his 2020 rule, especially concerning LGBTQ+ students.

    Congressional Republicans, who sought to overturn the Title IX rule, also praised the ruling and pledged to protect educational opportunities for women and girls. Passing legislation that would prevent transgender students from participating on the sports team consistent with their gender identity is a top priority for the House.

    “It is clear the Biden-Harris administration completely lost its way on Title IX,” said Louisiana senator Dr. Bill Cassidy, the chair of the HELP committee, in a news release. “They betrayed the original intent of Title IX by removing longstanding protections that ensured fairness for women and girls.”

    Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that Biden’s proposed rewrite “would have undermined safety, freedom and fairness for women.”

    Meanwhile, advocates for LGBTQ+ students and those who experience harassment or sexual violence described the ruling as an attack on trans students and others that would impact their educations.

    “With these protections already removed in some states, students who experience sexual assault have had their complaints dismissed, or worse, been punished by their schools after reporting; pregnant students have been unfairly penalized for taking time off to give birth to a child; and LGBTQI+ students have faced vicious bullying and harassment just for being who they are,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center.

    Tracey Vitchers, executive director of It’s On Us, a national organization working to combat campus sexual assault, took issue with claims that overturning the Biden rule would protect women and girls.

    “The 2020 regulations did well-documented harm to the safety of women and girls by making it more difficult to report and obtain justice if they experience sexual violence in school,” she said. “If preserving the rights and safety of women and girls was the actual litmus test for today’s decision, the judge would have chosen to uphold Biden’s rule. Instead, the safety of women and girls is being weaponized to discriminate” against trans people.

    Vitchers added that while Title IX is important, colleges are required under state and federal laws to respond to reports of harassment and address student safety.

    “Institutions are going to have to find ways to be creative to uphold the rights and safety of students on their campus under this new environment,” she said. “If Title IX is going to continue to be this horrible political football it has turned into, we need to see schools invest in evidence-based approaches to sexual violence prevention, because the ultimate goal is to ensure students have an education free of sexual violence.”

    Jessica Blake contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Vacates Overtime Final Rule

    Federal Judge Vacates Overtime Final Rule

    by CUPA-HR | November 15, 2024

    On November 15, a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Texas ruled to strike down the Biden administration’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime final rule. The ruling strikes down all components of the rule, meaning both the July and January salary thresholds are no longer in effect, and the triennial automatic updates will not take place. The decision applies to all covered employers and employees under the FLSA nationwide.

    The Eastern District Court of Texas held a hearing on the business groups’ lawsuits challenging the overtime regulations on November 8. During the hearing, the judge suggested that it would be problematic if DOL’s salary basis replaced the duties test established under the FLSA regulations. He also noted that the Biden administration’s regulations were projected to have a larger number of workers impacted by the salary threshold increase than the Trump administration’s 2019 rule. The judge did not rule from the bench, but his remarks showed skepticism about the Biden administration’s rule.

    Background

    As a reminder, the final rule implemented a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA overtime regulations. The first increase took effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year). The second increase was set to take effect on January 1, 2025, and it would have increased the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year). The final rule also adopted automatic updates to the minimum salary threshold that would occur every three years.

    Soon after the final rule was published, several lawsuits were filed challenging the final rule. The suit claimed that the salary threshold that was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2025, was so high it would result in more than 4 million individuals being denied exempt status, even though these individuals could be reasonably classified as exempt based on their duties, and in doing so, the rule violated both the statutory language of the FLSA and prior court decisions. The suits also challenged the automatic updates. The Eastern District Court of Texas granted a preliminary injunction for public employers in Texas prior to the July 1 effective date, stopping the rule from taking effect for those employers only. For private employers in Texas and all other employers in the country, the rule went into effect on July 1, and the January 1 effective date was still in play.

    Looking Ahead

    With the decision, the salary threshold set in the 2019 regulations ($35,568 per year or $683 per week) will be the salary threshold employers should adhere to. Whether President-elect Trump decides to increase the minimum salary threshold during his second term remains to be seen, but there will be no effort from his incoming administration to appeal the decision in favor of the Biden administration’s threshold. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of any updates related to the FLSA overtime regulations.



    Source link

  • Federal Judge Blocks NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Policy for Recruits Nationwide – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judge Blocks NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Policy for Recruits Nationwide – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 27, 2024

    On February 23, a federal judge with the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction barring the NCAA from enforcing its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness compensation for recruits. The injunction applies nationwide.

    The policy in question prohibited student-athletes from negotiating and signing NIL contracts prior to enrolling at a college or university. This meant NIL compensation could not be used to “induce” a recruit to a specific school. This policy stood in contrast to the NCAA’s policy for student-athletes already enrolled at a college or university, who, as of 2021, have been allowed to seek NIL compensation.

    In his decision, U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker explained, “The NCAA’s prohibition likely violates federal antitrust law and harms student-athletes.” He clarified, “Without the give and take of a free market, student-athletes simply have no knowledge of their true NIL value. It is this suppression of negotiating leverage and the consequential lack of knowledge that harms student-athletes.” He further argued that the NCAA “fails to show how the timing of when a student-athlete enters such an agreement would destroy the goal of preserving amateurism,” thereby not establishing rationale for treating recruits differently than enrolled student-athletes.

    The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia after the NCAA investigated the University of Tennessee for potential violations of the policy. The NCAA will likely appeal the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan, but in the meantime, reports indicate the organization is already considering potential policy changes.

    This case is only one of the lawsuits targeting the NCAA and its policies towards student-athletes. Several lawsuits are currently pending before various federal courts, alleging the NCAA in its current form violates federal antitrust law. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that the Dartmouth men’s basketball team are employees of the university, allowing them to organize and schedule a union representation election for early March. The NLRB has also issued a complaint against the University of Southern California, the PAC-12 Conference and the NCAA, alleging the three have misclassified USC’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees and that the three organizations are joint employers of the athletes.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for and keep members apprised of any updates on these cases.



    Source link

  • Federal Judge Blocks Department of Education’s Title IX Guidance – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judge Blocks Department of Education’s Title IX Guidance – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 27, 2022

    On July 15, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Department of Education’s Title IX guidance that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Specifically, the ruling blocks enforcement of a June 2021 Notice of Interpretation issued by the department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in light of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and President Biden’s Executive Order, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.”

    Twenty Republican-controlled states, led by their attorneys general, were listed as plaintiffs on the case, arguing that the department’s guidance should not be enforced by the agency as it did not go through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process and is not codified law. They claimed that the department’s enforcement of the guidance also puts states at risk of losing significant federal funding if they do not comply with the guidance. The Eastern District of Tennessee judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing the preliminary injunction while stating that the guidance interferes with states’ abilities to enforce their own laws that prohibit transgender students from participating on sports teams or using restrooms that align with their gender identity.

    As it currently stands, the injunction applies only to the 20 states listed as plaintiffs in the case, potentially impacting the policies of colleges and universities in those states. Notably, the injunction does not impact the recently issued Title IX proposed regulations that are currently undergoing a 60-day notice-and-comment period. If the Title IX regulations are codified into law, however, they may face similar legal challenges.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this issue and keep members apprised of any developments related to Title IX.



    Source link