Tag: June

  • HR and the Courts — June 2025 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — June 2025 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 10, 2025

    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.

    Federal Court Allows Nationwide Class Action Alleging AI Age Discrimination To Proceed

    A federal court recently ruled that Workday’s artificial intelligence scoring algorithm for screening job applicants meets the standard to conclude that it may violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in discriminating against older job applicants. The court ruled that the nationwide class action may proceed (Mobley v. Workday (N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00770, 5/16/25)).

    While the court has not yet ruled on other allegations, the lawsuit also alleged that the algorithm has an unlawful disparate impact based on race and disability. President Trump has instructed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice not to prosecute disparate impact cases, but this executive order does not apply to private lawsuits or state equal employment opportunity laws.

    Conflicting Federal Court Decisions on President Trump’s Executive Order Involving Mass Layoffs and Office Closings at the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights

    On May 22, 2025, a federal court judge in Massachusetts issued a broad injunction prohibiting the mass layoffs and office closings at the Department of Education. The judge ordered the administration to reinstate all laid-off employees, and carry out all duties mandated by U.S. law, including managing student loans, aiding state educational programs and enforcing civil rights laws. The judge ruled that the personnel cuts would likely “cripple the department.” The judge concluded that the president lacked the power to effectively dissolve a federal agency created by Congress by getting rid of employees, closing offices and transferring duties to other agencies (Somerville Public Schools v. Trump (D. Mass. 25-cv-10667, 5/22/25)). The Trump administration will appeal the decision. Learn more.

    The day before, on May 21, 2025, a federal court judge in Washington, D.C. denied a private lawsuit to enjoin President Trump’s executive order, which resulted in placing nearly half of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) staff on administrative leave and closing seven of the OCR’s 12 regional offices. The lawsuit was brought by a group of parents and students and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. The judge denied the request for a temporary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs lacked appropriate standing to sue and were unlikely to prevail on the merits (Carter v. United States Department of Education (D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-007044, 5/21/25)).

    Presidential Executive Order Disfavors Criminal Enforcement of Federal Agency Rules

    An executive order signed by President Trump on May 9, 2025, advised all federal agencies that they should consider civil rather than criminal enforcement of their regulations. This could have a significant impact on the enforcement of federal laws and regulations in the HR field. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) all have an optional criminal enforcement capability, which is in addition to the standard civil enforcement typically pursued by the Department of Labor. The executive order also stated that agencies should avoid imposing a “strict liability” standard to their rules. Strict liability allows the government to pursue a person or entity in a situation regardless of intent.

    The executive order also requires all agencies to, within one year, provide the Department of Justice with a list of criminal regulatory offenses they are enforcing and the range of the criminal penalties for violation.

    Teacher Loses First Amendment Case Against School District After Firing

    A federal court recently ruled that the Unified Oakland School Board was immune from a lawsuit by a kindergarten teacher who refused to call a student by the pronouns they use, despite the student’s and parents’ wishes. The teacher claimed that to do so was inconsistent with her religious beliefs and to require her to do so violated her First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The school district had offered the plaintiff several accommodations before termination, including the option to call the student by their first name. The plaintiff refused and was ultimately terminated.

    The court dismissed the claim against the school district on sovereign immunity grounds and against individual officials on qualified immunity grounds (Ramirez v. Oakland Unified School District et al. (2025 BL 181443 N.D. Cal., No. 24-cv-09223, LB, 5/27/25)). The plaintiff was given 28 days to file an amended complaint against individual defendants.

    The judge also dismissed the teacher’s First Amendment free speech claim, holding that her refusal to use the pronoun the student uses was not protected free speech.

    Harvard Wins Temporary Reprieve From Presidential Executive Order Banning Its International Students From Entering the United States

    A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the government from enforcing a presidential executive order which would have banned Harvard from continuing to enroll foreign students. The judge ruled that it would cause Harvard irreparable harm and issued the TRO barring enforcement of the executive order and ordering that a hearing be held on the issue on June 16, 2025 (Harvard v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (25-cv-11472, U.S. D Ct. Maa. (Boston) 6/5/25)).

    The TRO will be in effect until the June 16, 2025, hearing when the court will hear arguments over whether to extend the injunction. Learn more.

    NCAA and Power Five Conferences $2.8 Billion Settlement Proposal of Antitrust, NIL Suit Approved by Federal Judge

    On June 7, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilkens of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the proposed NCAA and Power Five conferences (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC) settlement of the antitrust lawsuit brought against them for not allowing college athletes to receive payments for name, image and likeness (NIL) related to their college sports status. The judge approved a $2.8 billion settlement proposal to be distributed among student-athletes playing during the 2016-2024 seasons. In addition, the colleges are allowed to share up to 22% of revenue received annually from athletic programs with college athletes — capped at $20.5 million a year — going forward for 10 years. The cap will be adjusted upward by 4% during the first two years of the agreement.

    It is estimated that, of the $20.5 million annual cap, about 90% will go to football players and about 10% will go to male basketball players. In addition, NIL payments made by boosters and other sports-related entities are subject to outside review by the accounting firm Deloitte.

    Because of the unprecedented and fast-changing pronouncements of the new presidential administration and the intervening court challenges, the developments contained in this blog post are subject to change. Before acting on the legal issues discussed here, please consult your college or university counsel and, as always, act with caution.



    Source link

  • No Kings Day of Protest June 14, 2025 (NoKings.org)

    No Kings Day of Protest June 14, 2025 (NoKings.org)

    On June 14—Flag Day—President Trump wants tanks in the street and a made-for-TV display of dominance for his birthday. A spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn’t staged in Washington. It rises up everywhere else.

    No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we’re taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like.

    We’re not gathering to feed his ego. We’re building a movement that leaves him behind.

    The flag doesn’t belong to President Trump. It belongs to us. We’re not watching history happen. We’re making it.

    On June 14th, we’re showing up everywhere he isn’t—to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.

    A core principle behind all No Kings events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events.
    Contact

    For general inquiries, please email us at info@nokings.org. Members of the media, please email us at media@nokings.org with inquires.

    Source link

  • June 5th Closing Reception & Artist Walkthrough of *GIVE LIGHT* Exhibit @CUNYSLU

    June 5th Closing Reception & Artist Walkthrough of *GIVE LIGHT* Exhibit @CUNYSLU







    Higher Education Inquirer : June 5th Closing Reception & Artist Walkthrough of *GIVE LIGHT* Exhibit @CUNYSLU




    Source link

  • New COPPA Rule to take effect in June

    New COPPA Rule to take effect in June

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule are to take effect on June 23, but companies have until April 22, 2026, to fully comply, according to the amended final rule published by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this week.
    • It remained unclear for months when — or if — the expanded COPPA Rule would go into effect after the FTC announced the finalized changes in January, just four days before President Donald Trump would be inaugurated.  
    • Though the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act itself does not explicitly mention schools, the updated rule will impact how K-12 leaders interact with ed tech companies, according to student data privacy experts.

    Dive Insight:

    COPPA is a 26-year-old federal law that gives parents control over the data that websites can collect from children ages 13 or younger. Its regulations and enforcement are overseen by the FTC, which is required by law to review the COPPA Rule every five years.  

    One of the key changes in the latest COPPA Rule is that companies must obtain parental consent before using children’s data for targeted advertising or disclosing their information to third parties, according to the April 22 notice published in the Federal Register. However, school districts are still allowed to give consent to ed tech companies in lieu of parental consent as long as that data is solely used for educational purposes and not commercially. 

    Schools should expect to see more transparency from ed tech companies, given that they are required under the new COPPA Rule to provide a direct notice to parents — or in this case school districts — about how they plan to collect and use children’s data upon receiving consent.

    The new rule also states that companies must put limits on retaining children’s data and cannot hold onto it indefinitely. Though the FTC did not specify a duration, it said companies can retain data “for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which the information was collected.”

    In another update, companies collecting children’s data have to bolster cybersecurity plans by, for instance, conducting annual risk assessments and implementing safeguards to protect children’s sensitive information. 

    The FTC also expanded its definition of any collected “personal information” to include biometric data such as facial recognition or fingerprints. Online contact information and government-issued IDs like Social Security numbers are also now considered personal information. 

    The updates come as companies increasingly try to profit off children’s data, the FTC said when announcing the finalized changes to the COPPA Rule in January.

    The new requirements also come as ed tech companies like PowerSchool have been targeted this year by cybersecurity incidents that have led to mass breaches of sensitive student data.

    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — June 2024 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — June 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 12, 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.

    Judge Halts Academic Workers’ Strike at Several University of California Campuses

    The University of California has taken legal action against United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents some 48,000 academic workers and graduate students across UC’s multiple campuses. The lawsuit requested an injunction to end the rolling strike at six campuses, which the university contended is in violation of the applicable no-strike contractual provisions. The judge granted the university’s request for a temporary restraining order on June 7, 2024. The order will halt the strike until the judge conducts a hearing over whether to grant a permanent injunction enforcing the no-strike provisions of the applicable labor contract (Regents of the University of California v. UAW Local 4811 (Cal Sup Court, No. 30-2024-01403666-CU-MC-CXC, 6/7/24)).

    This case followed the university’s complaint to the California Public Employment Relations Board alleging that the union had violated the applicable no-strike provisions. The board filed a complaint against the union, arguing it failed to give the university “adequate advance notice” and “failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith,” but declined the university’s request to seek a court order halting the strike.

    Following its exhaustion of all remedies at the state board, the university filed its own state court complaint, seeking to end the strike. The complaint accused picketers of blocking entrances to university property, including hospitals, and illegally occupying buildings. The university argued that the breach of contract endangers lifesaving research at hundreds of laboratories across many campuses. The UAW claimed that the no-strike clause is inapplicable because the university violated state law by calling in police to break up pro-Palestinian encampments on several campuses and allegedly changed workplace rules in response to the protests. The proceedings will continue with a full hearing over whether to convert the restraining order into a permanent injunction further barring the strike activity.

    University of Florida Recruit Sues Over Claimed $13.85 Million NIL Deal — NCAA Proposes Settlement of NIL Class Action

    A former football recruit has sued the University of Florida’s football coach and boosters, alleging they recruited him with the promise of $13.85 million in name, image and likeness payments and then reneged. The complaint, filed in federal district court in Florida, alleges fraud, tortious interference and other claims. The plaintiff alleges that, after the NIL offer, he rejected other lucrative offers only to have the Florida offer “decrease drastically” (Rashada v. Hathcock (N.D. Fla., 3:24-cv-00219, complaint 5/21/24)).

    The plaintiff alleges that, as a 19-year-old college-bound athlete, he was persuaded by a network of university officials and donors to flip on his commitment to the University of Miami, but they never came through on the NIL promises. After the deal never materialized, the plaintiff went to the University of Arizona instead and ultimately transferred to the University of Georgia.

    Separately, the NCAA and the Power Five conferences have proposed a nearly $2.8 billion settlement of the class action claim against them relating to their former ban on NIL payments to student-athletes. If the settlement is approved, the NCAA also agrees that it would no longer attempt to regulate NIL payments, which would be solely up to each college and university to determine and administer (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal., No., 4:20-cv-03919)).

    Court of Appeals to Review Whether Discharge for Refusal to Take Anti-Discrimination Training Is Itself Discriminatory

    The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) will decide whether to affirm a federal trial court’s dismissal of a discrimination claim brought by a White employee. The employee claimed he was discharged in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws for his refusal to take the employer’s mandatory anti-discrimination training, which he claimed was discriminatory. The plaintiff claimed the training was inherently biased against White employees, after admitting he had no knowledge of the contents of the training (Vavra v. Honeywell International Inc. (Case No. 23-02823, oral arg sched 5/21/24)).

    The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s internal emails to the company’s president, which accused the company of “race baiting,” were protected communications. The court further concluded that the plaintiff was not terminated for the communications, but rather because of his refusal to take mandatory anti-discrimination training that was not itself discriminatory. The employer’s diversity, equity and inclusion and law departments had properly vetted the training and concluded it was intended to foster an inclusive work environment.

    U.S. Supreme Court Rejects White Professor’s Claims of Race and Sex Discrimination Filed Against HBCU

    The Supreme Court turned down a request for certiorari and declined to hear a White law school professor’s claim that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had erroneously dismissed her claim of race and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The law professor had claimed that the appeals court erroneously dismissed her claims that she and other female professors were treated poorly in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act and that she was forced to resign from Texas Southern University, a historically Black institution. The court denied the professor’s two petitions for it to hear her case without issuing an opinion (Sacks v. Texas Southern University (Case Nos. 23-891 & 23-1031, Cert denied 5/13/24)).

    The plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to adopt a “totality of circumstances” standard in determining whether her claims of years of “alleged” harassment and continuing violations justified her conclusion that she felt compelled to resign. The plaintiff also complained that the lower court had denied her the right to receive female wage data while requiring her to identify male comparators to make her Equal Pay Act claims. The Supreme Court denied the professor’s request to be heard in the absence of a response from the university, which had waived its right to respond to the professor’s petitions.

    In Employment Law Matter, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Federal Courts Can No Longer Dismiss Federal Lawsuits Subject to Mandatory Arbitration

    The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split among federal appellate courts on whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal trial courts can dismiss rather than stay a lawsuit that is covered by the terms of a mandatory arbitration agreement pending the outcome of arbitration. The 1st, 5th, 8th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have previously allowed dismissal while the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th have ruled that the case must be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

    The case involved a group of drivers who claimed they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to minimum wage, overtime and paid sick leave under federal and state laws. Both sides agreed that the dispute was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement. The 9th Circuit ruled the case should be dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the specific provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act require the courts to stay the action while it is referred to arbitration, pending the outcome of the arbitration (Smith v. Spizzirri (US No, 22-1218, 5/16/24)).

    Texas Sues EEOC Over Guidance Protecting LGBTQIA+ Employees From Sex Harassment Relating to Their Choice of Pronouns and Bathrooms Consistent With Gender Identity

    The Texas attorney general has filed suit in federal court seeking to block enforcement of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent guidance aimed at shielding LGBTQIA+ employees who seek to use pronouns and bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. The Texas suit alleges that the most recent EEOC guidance goes beyond the statutory limits of Title VII just as the prior EEOC workplace guidance, which was vacated in Texas federal court, did (The State of Texas v. EEOC (N/D. Tex., 2:21-CV-194-Z, Complaint, filed 5/21/24)).

    Separately, a coalition of 18 Republican attorneys general have also filed suit, seeking to block this EEOC guidance and alleging the same legal overreach by the EEOC.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — June 2023 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — June 2023 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 7, 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.

    NLRB Issues a Formal Complaint Alleging College Football and Basketball Players Are Employees and Can Petition to Unionize 

    The NLRB regional director in Los Angeles issued a long-awaited formal complaint alleging that the NCAA, Pac-12, and The University of Southern California all violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when they refused to treat college basketball and football players as employees under the NLRA. The regional director agreed with the legal conclusion the NLRB general counsel made last December and issued a formal complaint against the three parties. The NLRB regional director is alleging that all three entities are joint employers of these athletes and violated the NLRA by misclassifying them as “non-employee student athletes” (Univ. of Southern California (NLRB Reg Dir Case No. 31-CA-290326, complaint issued 5/18/23)).

    If the NLRB ultimately prevails on all counts, the outcome could lead to unionization of college basketball and football players at both public and private college and universities in the U.S. While the NLRB has no jurisdiction over public institutions, it does have jurisdiction over the private NCAA and various private athletic conferences it alleges are joint employers of these athletes. Needless to say, this will be a heavily contested and lengthy litigation event.

    U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Unions Can Be Held Liable in State Court for Intentional Destruction of Employer Property During a Strike

    In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Teamsters Union could be held liable for intentional destruction of  employer property during a strike and that the victimized employer could sue the union in state court alleging such intentional infliction of damages (Glacier Northwest Inc. v. Teamsters Local 174 (U.S. No. 21-1449, 6/1/23)). The case had been dismissed under the long-held Supreme Court decision in the Garmon case, holding that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempted state court litigation against labor unions.

    The Supreme Court created a narrow exception to Garmon’s federal preemption, holding that, “far from taking reasonable precautions to mitigate foreseeable danger to employer property … the union executed the strike designed to compromise the safety of the employer’s trucks and product.” The court concluded that such union conduct is not even arguably protected by the NLRA.

    Here the union called a strike of concrete truck drivers and intentionally instructed the drivers to return their trucks, loaded with concrete, to the employer rather than complete the delivery. This resulted in the concrete hardening in the trucks, leading to the destruction of trucks and concrete product.”

    EEOC Publishes Updated Guidance on the End of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency 

    On May 15, the EEOC updated its technical assistance entitled “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.” The updated guidance covers a variety of issues related to the end of the public health emergency. While the publication notes that some pandemic-related reasonable accommodations may cease, accommodations for employees with long COVID may continue to be necessary. The guidance contains tips to help employers avoid COVID-related harassment of applicants or employees who need to take precautions because of a disability.

    University Prevails on First Amendment Grounds in Defamation Action Brought by Former Professor

    A Louisiana state appeals court dismissed a defamation action brought by a former professor against the university as a result of the student newspaper publishing allegedly defamatory statements concerning the professor. The student newspaper articles concerned racism allegations. The court of appeals dismissed the case, holding that the newspaper articles constituted speech on matters of public interest protected by the First Amendment. The court also noted that the articles concerned “a high profile individual” (Duhe v. Loyola University of New Orleans (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. No. 22-C-292, 5/30/23)).

    State-Based Initiatives Restricting or Banning DEI Policies Have Passed or Are in the Legislative Pipeline in More Than 12 States — State-Based Legal Challenges Likely to Ensue

    Florida and North Dakota have become the first states to restrict DEI programs and/or training at public higher ed institutions. Arizona, Tennessee and more than 12 other states are considering such measures. It is likely that these initiatives will be subject to continuing litigation in multiple states. Faculty unions at some public, state-based systems may argue that these restrictions violate existing collective-bargaining provisions. The state of the law in this area is rapidly changing and subject to different turns depending on how different state courts deal with these issues prospectively. We will continue to follow state law developments and will keep CUPA-HR members apprised in this monthly column.

    University Defeats Transgender Detective’s Sex Bias, Promotion Lawsuit — Failure to Identify a Similarly Situated Non-Protected-Class Employee 

    A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a Title VII claim filed by a transgender detective alleging sex discrimination under Title VII for failure of the university  to promote. The federal judge dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiff failed to identify a similarly situated non-protected-class employee who was treated more favorably (Ponce v. Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees (2023 BL 162924, S.D. Fla. No. 9:22-cv-81546, 5/12/23)).

    The judge dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice to the plaintiff refiling the lawsuit to appropriately allege a similarly situated non-protected-class employee who was treated more favorably.

    State Laws Requiring Pay Ranges to be Part of Job Postings and Ads Are Growing 

    New York, California, Washington and Colorado have already enacted laws requiring pay ranges to be listed in job postings and ads. Specifics should be discussed with local counsel in those jurisdictions.

    Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Hawaii  have bills either pending in the state legislature or before the governor awaiting signature. Specifics vary by state, but the trend is to force employers to be more transparent in job postings and ads.

    Public University Registered to Do Business Out of State Is Subject to Out-of-State Sex-Harassment Litigation — Sovereign Immunity Defense Rejected

    The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the petition by a public university located in Alabama to appeal the divided decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court which allowed the university to be subject to a sex-harassment suit filed in North Carolina (Troy University V. Farmer (U.S. No.  22-787, cert denied, 5/30/23)).

    The Supreme Court denied the university’s appeal of the adverse decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court, which held that the university’s registration to do business in North Carolina and its operation of an office for commercial activities in Fayetteville, North Carolina, was enough to subject it to the jurisdiction of the North Carolina courts. Specifically, the North Carolina court held that the agreement that the university signed, which allowed it to do business in the state, contained an agreement to sue and be sued in the state. The North Carolina court held that this waived the university’s sovereign immunity.



    Source link

  • A Review of Complete College America’s ACT Conference (June 2022)

    A Review of Complete College America’s ACT Conference (June 2022)

    In June 2022, I was very excited to attend Complete College America’s ACT: Policy & Action Summit in Louisville, Kentucky. This was my first time visiting Kentucky and everything was beautiful! 

    Apparently, this conference is “where the magic happens. Where ideas come to life, decisions are made, and plans for impact take shape” and this was definitely true. Usually, when I attend a higher education summit, it is just focused on current information and best practices, but this conference took a different turn. It was all about action and implementation.

    Several of the key groups from the Complete College were able to come together and to take action. These groups included: state teams of higher education leaders and policymakers came together. 

    The content was amazing and the conversations were even better.  Our conversations focused on Time to Degree, Corequisite Support, Guided Pathways, and more.

    Here was the schedule:

    Day 1

    Welcome from the CCA President: Dr. Yolanda Watson-Spiva

    Bringing in Those Left Behind in the College Completion Movement

    Continued Progress and New Frontiers

    No Middle Ground – Advancing Equity Through Practice

    ACT I – Start, Stop, Continue

    Day 2

    The Politics of Equitable College Completion

    Equity and Public University Funding

    No Middle Ground – Advancing Equity in All States

    ACT II & III – Policy Recommendation and Development

    Innovation in Systems Change

    New Opportunities for Your Complete College Alliance Team

    I learned so much through this summit and the networking was great. One of the aspects of the conference that served as a highlight for me was the placement of several flags around the room to represent the institutions of each Complete College America member/partner.

    This was evidence of intentional support and success.

    The sponsors for this event included: The Lumina Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Ascendium, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Barr Foundation

    ***

    Check out my book – Retaining College Students Using Technology: A Guidebook for Student Affairs and Academic Affairs Professionals.

    Remember to order copies for your team as well!


    Thanks for visiting! 


    Sincerely,


    Dr. Jennifer T. Edwards
    Professor of Communication

    Executive Director of the Texas Social Media Research Institute & Rural Communication Institute

    Source link

  • HR and the Courts – June 2022 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts – June 2022 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 7, 2022

    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.

    Supreme Court to Determine Scope of Highly Paid Executive Employee Exemption Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

    The U.S. Supreme Court will review a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of an employee who was granted overtime status for his non-executive position that paid him $200,000 a year. This oil industry case will have application to all U.S. employers. The executive employee salary exemption threshold is currently $100,000 a year. At issue is whether compensation alone, absent executive/managerial status will exempt employees from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The employee was a non-executive toolpusher on a drill rig and was paid $200,000 a year, twice the $100,000 executive salary exemption minimum.

    There is a split in the circuit courts on this issue leaving the Supreme Court to decide the issue. The 6th and 8th Circuits have ruled that non-executive employees should not be exempt from the FLSA no matter how much money they make. The 1st and 2nd Circuits allow an exemption for these workers under the salary exemption test.

    Women’s Basketball Coach Can Proceed With Title VII Sex Discrimination Lawsuit — Not Required to Arbitrate Discrimination Claims Under Her Employment Contract

    A U.S. District Court judge rejected the University of Montana’s summary judgement motion to dismiss a sex discrimination lawsuit and enforce mandatory arbitration under its former women’s basketball coach’s employment contract. The sex discrimination claims related to her performance evaluations, criticisms, and decision not to renew her employment agreement. The employment agreement had a general arbitration clause which covered contract disputes. However the court pointed out that the arbitration clause did not mention sex discrimination or bias claims. Therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration clause lacked the “requisite precision” required by the 9th Circuit for an individual to waive their rights to pursue Title VII claims in court (Schweyen V. University of Montana-Missoula (2022 BL 156392, D. Mont No. 9:21-cv-00138, 5/5/22)).

    The court concluded that the arbitration agreement, at most, was an agreement to arbitrate contract disputes as a basketball coach. The court pointed out that the clause did not mention giving up her right to file suit in court over non-contract issues such as sex bias.

    Federal Court Enjoins EEOC and HHS From Requiring Christian Employers and Healthcare Providers to Cover Gender Transition Surgery 

    A U.S. District Court trial judge in North Dakota has barred the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from requiring Christian employers and healthcare providers, under either Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Affordable Care Act, to cover the cost of or provide gender transition surgery. The judge granted the injunction requested by the plaintiff, the Christian Employers Alliance, to prevent the EEOC and the HHS from requiring the group’s members to provide gender transition surgery until the case is tried on the merits and it is decided whether such a requirement violates the Christian employers’ First Amendment rights or rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (Christian Employers Alliance V. The EEOC, et al  (Case no. 1-21-cv-00195 D.N.D. 5/17/22)).

    The judge concluded that the plaintiff businesses must either violate sincerely held religious beliefs or face monetary losses, fines or civil liability. The judge concluded that the plaintiff’s likelihood of prevailing at trial on the merits, “weighed significantly in favor of granting the injunction.” The judge also enjoined the EEOC and HHS from enforcing the requirement to plaintiff employers’ insurers and third party administrators.

    Court of Appeals Reverses NLRB’s Decision Holding That the Employer’s “Back to the Salt Mine” Tweet Was an Unlawful Threat

    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision holding that the The Federalist magazine violated the National Labor Relations Act when, during the union’s organization campaign, the magazine’s publisher tweeted that if the magazine’s employees unionized he would send them “back to the salt mine.” The appeals court ruled that no reasonable employee could actually interpret the publicly available tweet as a veiled threat. The court concluded that Twitter posts are often exaggerated and sarcastic, as Twitter encourages such approaches.

    The court also concluded that the publisher sent the tweet to 80,000 followers, which made it publicly available rather than directing it to the six magazine employees who were subject to the union organization drive.

     



    Source link