Professor O’Kane will lead ATEC from July. Picture: Cath Piltz
The chair of the Australian Universities Accord is to lead the yet-to-be-established Australian Tertiary Education Commission, Education Minister Jason Clare revealed on Wednesday night.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
by CUPA-HR | July 10, 2024
Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.
The rolling strike of University of California graduate students at several campuses, protesting the university’s handling of Israel-Hamas war protests is formally over as a result of the university and union agreement to extend the injunction granted by a California state court at the university’s request. The university successfully argued that the rolling strike violated the collective bargaining agreement’s no-strike provision. The UAW represents 38,000 grad students at several University of California campuses.
UC student workers walked off their jobs at six campuses in May and continued a rolling strike until the court enjoined the strike activity. The university breach-of-contract litigation continues, as there remain issues to be decided by the court as to the breadth of the no-strike provisions and the university’s claim for damages resulting from the breach of the no-strike provisions.
A federal judge recent ruled that a plaintiff student failed to provide evidence that the university had substantial control over the context in which the assault or sex harassment occurred to make the university liable under Title IX. The judge concluded that even though the university had control over the alleged harasser because of an alleged student code violation, this was not enough to substantiate jurisdiction under Title IX (Roe V. Marshall University Board of Governors (2024 BL 215044, S.D. W. Va. No. 3:22-cv-00532, 6/24/24)).
When the harassment occurs off campus, the judge ruled that the court must find some nexus between the “out of school conduct and the school.” The court concluded that the incident in question took place at a private party at a private residence and the party was not sanctioned, hosted or sponsored by the university or an entity affiliated with the university. Moreover, permission for the party was not sought from the university, and the university was unaware of the party until it was over.
The university’s Title IX office determined, four days after the incident, that the matter should be handled by the university’s Office of Student Conduct, which the judge concluded was consistent with Title IX regulations at the time. The student conduct office immediately issued an no-contact order between the student and the alleged harasser and conducted a six-week investigation.
The male student (alleged harasser) was ultimately placed on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program, do 20 hours of community service, and accept responsibility for violation of the student code. The plaintiff (alleged victim) was also put on probation and required to participate in an alcohol education program and complete 10 hours of community service, after admitting to underage drinking. In dismissing the case against the university, the judge also concluded that the male student (alleged harasser) also faced possible independent criminal penalties.
America First Legal, led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed at least 15 lawsuits alleging that employer DEI programs are illegal under Title VII and has sent more than 30 letters asking the EEOC to probe employer DEI programs at large employers, including Morgan Stanley and IBM Corp. Academic institutions could be their next target.
The second organization, American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by conservative activist Edward Blum, has claimed that these DEI programs violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which affirms that all citizens are equally protected by the law. The organization has used the 1866 statute in challenging DEI programs at law firms, including Winston and Strawn, Morrison Foerster, and Perkins Coe. The 1866 statute is broader than Title VII. Plaintiffs suing under the 1866 statute avoid the Title VII damage cap and the requirement that a charge be filed with the EEOC before filing suit.
A transgender woman plaintiff sued her employer’s group insurance plan, alleging that she was wrongly denied medical coverage for facial hair removal, which she claimed is an extremely important part of gender-affirming care. The plaintiff alleged that the care is deemed medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The lawsuit claimed that the denial, based on the conclusion that the surgery was cosmetic and unnecessary, was inconsistent with the evidence presented that the treatment was medically necessary (Cox V. WSP USA Inc. Group Insurance Plan (N.D. Cal. No. 3-24-cv-01312, 6/6/24)).
The plaintiff sought $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses plus $20,000 for future services. The case was dismissed after the parties stipulated to the judge that they had reached an undisclosed settlement.
The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts should give no more weight to an NLRB request for injunctive relief against employers allegedly violating the NLRA unfair labor practice provisions than it would give other litigants in injunction cases (Starbucks Corp, V. McKinney (U.S. No. 23-367, 6/13/24)). The Supreme Court essentially held that a defending employer is entitled to discovery over the NLRB’s alleged evidence before the court can issue an injunction. In the past, the NLRB has been able to maintain secrecy over this information when seeking extraordinary relief (e.g. an injunction requiring reinstatement of employees allegedly terminated for supporting a union).
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to resolve the split in appellate courts on the precise evidentiary burden applicable to employers attempting to justify an exemption to the application of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. Right now the circuits are split over whether an employer must prove an exemption by “clear and convincing evidence” rather than the lesser standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” The Supreme Court will resolve this split and decide which standard is applicable to employers going forward (E.M.D. Sales Inc. V. Carrera (U.S. No. 23-217, petition granted 6/17/24)).
The issue involves whether the defendant firm’s sales personnel fall inside the “outside sales exemption.” The company lost the case at trial, where the federal court held that it did not meet the “clear and convincing” standard, while numerous other appellate courts have applied the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
by CUPA-HR | July 5, 2023
Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.
Rejecting the arguments of Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, and the Biden administration that these programs were necessary to ensure campus diversity the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 on June 29, 2023, that the universities’ use of race in their specific admission programs violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision is 237 pages long with majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. The majority decision is 47 pages.
Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, concluded that these affirmative action programs, “… lacked sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, … involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.” He also concluded, “We have never permitted admission programs to work that way and we do not do so today.”
The immediate impact on employment-based affirmative action plans and DEI initiatives is unclear and will unfold as new cases arise, testing the breadth of this decision. We will continue to monitor developments in the employment area as they occur.
In a case involving the U.S. Postal Service’s denial of a Christian employee’s request to be exempt from Sunday work, the Supreme Court modified the test applicable to an employer’s denial of a religious accommodation.
In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII an employer could deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation if the employer could demonstrate that the accommodation would create a “undue burden” (TWA v. Hardison). In its decision last month, the Supreme Court interpreted the long-standing Hardison rule to mean that in order for an employer to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation, the employer must show that the burden of granting the accommodation “would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” (Groff v. DeJoy (U.S. No. 22-174, 6/29/23)).
The plaintiff here asked the Supreme Court to modify the standard for denial of a religious accommodation to be consistent with the standard for denial of an ADA accommodation. The Supreme Court did not grant that request but has clearly raised the employer’s burden in being able to reject a religious-based accommodation from the prior standard, which has applied since 1977.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona) reversed a federal trial court dismissal of a sex-harassment hostile-environment complaint brought by warehouse workers who complained about offensive, sexually graphic and misogynistic music played by coworkers and supervisors. The trial court dismissed the case on “equal opportunity harassment” grounds because the music was offensive to both sexes. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that sex-based discrimination violates Title VII even if it is directed at more than one sex and can create a hostile work environment which is actionable (Sharp v. S&S Activewear LLC (9th Cir. Blom. DLR, 6/9/23)).
The Court of Appeals effectively put an end to the defense that has become known as the “equal opportunity harasser” defense.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina) affirmed the lower court decision dismissing the action of a tenured psychology professor at George Mason University contesting the sanctions the institution applied following a decision that he created a sex-harassment hostile environment for graduate students. Four students complained that he shared explicit sex talk regarding his sexual exploits and asked questions about their sex lives and that they were forced to participate in the conversations in order to receive favorable treatment regarding research and education opportunities. The university continued to employ the professor as a tenured psychology professor, but banned him from teaching graduate level courses and mentoring graduate students for approximately two years, and disaffiliated him with the university’s clinical psychology program for five to six years.
The appeals court rejected his due-process allegations, concluding that the sanctions did not amount to a “significant demotion” because he is still employed as a tenured professor and the sanctions are not permanent (Kashdan v. George Mason University (4th Cir. No. 20-01509, 6/13/23)). The court rejected his male-bias accusations levelled against the university, its Title IX coordinator, its compliance coordinator, and the Education Department, concluding that all the general statements he raised did not amount to anti-male bias.
An English professor at Penn State University has sued the university, claiming its anti-racism training created a hostile work environment for him, which forced him to resign his position. He is seeking a declaratory judgement from the federal court that the university is in violation of “federal civil rights and free speech laws,” the removal of disciplinary records from his file, and other damages. He is claiming that the university’s anti-racism training and other race policies created a hostile work environment for him as a White English professor. He also claims he was asked to equalize student outcomes by race in his grading of students (De Piero v. Pa. State University (E.D. Pa. 23-cv-02281, Comp filed 6/14/23)). We will follow developments in this litigation as it unfolds.
A federal district court judge recently dismissed a claim of hostile work environment related to the receipt of anonymous hate mail written on office letterhead and other anonymous hate communications received by an employee. The employee involved shared the anonymous letters and communication put on the windshield of her car with her employer. The employer immediately treated the incidents as a hate crime, contacted the police, and embarked on an internal investigation which was not successful in finding the perpetrator. The employer allowed the employee to work from home on request and provided other requested accommodations based on the employee’s claim of post-traumatic stress and other related ailments.
The court dismissed the hostile environment case, holding that the anonymous letters could not be attributed to the employer and that the employer’s response was reasonably calculated to end the harassment (Washington v. Offender Aid and Restoration (2023 BL 205479, W.D. Va. No. 3:22- cv- 00041, 6/15/23)). The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s disability claims, concluding that the employer also accommodated all of plaintiff’s requests for accommodation.
A federal jury handed down a verdict in the case of an athletic coach who was reinstated by the college with back pay after he filed a due-process claim, but was denied a “name clearing” hearing to repair the alleged damage to his reputation. The plaintiff was a substitute athletic manger at Bronx Community College, which is part of the City University of New York (CUNY).
The jury awarded the plaintiff $1 as nominal damages but denied his claim for economic relief, as the plaintiff had been placed on administrative leave with pay during the investigation. He was then fired. However he received back pay as part of his reinstatement after filing the due-process claim (Knights V. C.U.N.Y. ( E.D.N.Y. 19-CV-480 (FB) jury verdict 6/23/23)).
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to highlight value of International Education at the Department’s 12th Annual EducationUSA Forum on July 26th. U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona will also address the Forum. Media Note via the Office of the Spokesperson [July 23, 2021] available at https://bit.ly/3kU7c1J
