Tag: proposed

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

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

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

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

    The Updated Guidance

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

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

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

    Looking Ahead

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



    Source link

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

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

    by CUPA-HR | August 28, 2023

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

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

    Purpose and Definitions 

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

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

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

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

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

    Reasonable Accommodations 

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

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

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

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

    Supporting Documentation 

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

    Remedies and Enforcement 

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

    Next Steps 

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

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

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



    Source link

  • DHS Announces Proposed Pilot Program for Non-E-Verify Employers to Use Remote I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    DHS Announces Proposed Pilot Program for Non-E-Verify Employers to Use Remote I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 9, 2023

    On August 3, 2023, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on a potential pilot program to allow employers not enrolled in E-Verify to harness remote examination procedures for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    Background

    DHS’s recent actions are built upon a series of moves aimed at modernizing and making more flexible the employment verification process. On July 25, 2023, the DHS rolled out a final rule enabling the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize optional alternative examination practices for employers when inspecting an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents, as mandated by the Form I-9. The rule creates a framework under which DHS may implement permanent flexibilities under specified conditions, start pilot procedures with respect to the examination of documents, or react to crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Alongside the final rule, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register authorizing a remote document examination procedure for employers who are participants in good standing in E-Verify and announced it would be disclosing details in the near future about a pilot program to a broader category of businesses.

    Key Highlights of the Proposed Non-E-Verify Remote Document Examination Pilot 

    DHS’s proposal primarily revolves around the following points:

    • Purpose: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intends to gauge the security impact of remote verification compared to traditional in-person examination of the Form I99. This involves evaluating potential consequences like error rates, fraud and discriminatory practices.
    • Pilot Procedure: The new pilot program would mirror the already authorized alternative method for E-Verify employers, including aspects such as remote document inspection, document retention and anti-discrimination measures.
    • Eligibility: The pilot program is open to most employers unless they have more than 500 employees. However, E-Verify employers are excluded since DHS has already greenlit an alternative for them.
    • Application Process: Interested employers must fill out the draft application form, which DHS has made available online. This form captures details like company information, terms of participation, participant obligations, and more.
    • Information Collection: Employers wishing to join the pilot would be required to complete the formal application linked above. ICE would periodically seek data from these employers, such as the number of new hires or how many employees asked for a physical inspection.
    • Documentation: Participating companies must electronically store clear copies of all supporting documents provided by individuals for the Form I-9. They might also be required to undertake mandatory trainings for detecting fraudulent documents and preventing discrimination.
    • Onsite/Hybrid Employees: Companies might face restrictions or a set timeframe for onsite or hybrid employees, dictating when they must physically check the Form I-9 after the initial remote assessment.
    • Audits and Investigations: All employers, including pilot participants, are liable for audits and evaluations. DHS plans to contrast data from these assessments to discern any systemic differences between the new method and the traditional one.

    What’s Next: Seeking Public Comments by October 2 

    DHS is actively seeking feedback from the public regarding the proposed pilot and the draft application form. The department encourages stakeholders to consider and provide insights on the following points:

    • Practical Utility: Assess if the proposed information requirement is vital for the agency’s proper functioning and whether the data collected will be practically useful.
    • Accuracy and Validity: Analyze the agency’s estimation of the information collection’s burden, ensuring the methods and assumptions are valid.
    • Enhance Information Quality: Offer suggestions to improve the clarity, utility and overall quality of the data collected.
    • Minimize Collection Burden: Propose ways to ease the data collection process for respondents, exploring technological solutions such as electronic submissions.

    In light of this, CUPA-HR plans to carefully evaluate the notice and associated application. Based on its review, CUPA-HR is considering submitting comments to provide valuable insights to DHS. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates regarding this proposed pilot program and other changes to Form I-9 alternative examination procedures.



    Source link

  • Department of Labor Moves on Proposed Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Department of Labor Moves on Proposed Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 13, 2023

    Yesterday, the Department of Labor (DOL) sent its proposed rule on “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees” to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. This is a required initial step before the proposed overtime rule is published.

    OIRA, part of the president’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is required to review all proposed and final rules, as well as all regulatory actions, before implementation. While OIRA has 90 days to conduct its review, in most cases, the review takes 30 to 60 days. If this timetable holds true, DOL stands a reasonable chance of publishing a proposed rule sometime close to the August 2023 target date set forth in the Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

    The proposed rule is not public during OIRA’s review, so at this time we do not have any specific details on what the proposal contains. However, OIRA takes meetings to hear from concerned parties about proposed rules under their review, and CUPA-HR will be requesting a meeting to reiterate concerns we have set forth in letters to DOL since the proposal appeared on the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda.

    We’ll be sure to keep CUPA-HR members updated on all the latest details regarding the proposed overtime rule and possible advocacy opportunities during the OIRA review process.

     



    Source link

  • Department of Education Releases Title IX Proposed Rule – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Releases Title IX Proposed Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 23, 2022

    On June 23, the Department of Education released the highly anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Title IX. The NPRM proposes to replace the Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX rule and establishes safeguards for transgender students by proposing a ban on “all forms of sex discrimination, including discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity.” The proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.

    In March 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) titled, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” The EO directed the secretary of education to evaluate the Trump administration’s Title IX regulations and to “issue new guidance as needed on the implementation of the rule.”

    Of significance, the NPRM proposes to repeal the Trump administration’s requirement for live hearings for Title IX investigations. It also proposes to change the definition of sexual harassment back to “unwelcome sex-based conduct” that creates a hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive that it denies or limits a person’s ability to participate in a school’s education program or activity.

    CUPA-HR will be conducting a deeper analysis of the 700-page proposal in the days and weeks to come and will be partnering with other higher education associations to ensure the department receives meaningful feedback on its proposal.

    For additional information on the proposed rule, the department has provided a summary of the major provisions and a fact sheet.



    Source link

  • DOL to Host Regional Listening Sessions for Proposed Overtime Rule Regulations – CUPA-HR

    DOL to Host Regional Listening Sessions for Proposed Overtime Rule Regulations – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 7, 2022

    In the Biden administration’s fall 2021 regulatory agenda, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) announced that it planned to release in April 2022 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) changing criteria for the “executive, administrative and professional” exemptions from the overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In May and June, the DOL will host five regional listening sessions allowing stakeholders to discuss the anticipated proposed rule aimed at changing the exemptions to the federal overtime pay requirements.

    With listening sessions extending into May, the WHD will not be able to meet the April target date, but we do expect the agency will release a proposed rule in 2022 with compliance likely required in 2023. While the DOL has not shared how it may change the exemptions, it is holding listening sessions to elicit stakeholder input as to whether changes are appropriate and what changes would be appropriate at this time.

    Background

    According to the regulatory agenda, one of the goals of the NPRM would be “to update the salary level requirement of the section 13(a)(1) exemption [under the FLSA].” Changes to the overtime exemption minimum salary threshold have been proposed recently under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In 2016, President Obama’s DOL issued a final rule to increase the salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 per year and impose automatic updates to the threshold every three years, but the rule was subsequently struck down by federal court before taking effect in 2017. In 2019, the Trump administration issued a new final rule that raised the minimum salary threshold from $23,660 to $35,568 annually, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The $35,568 threshold remains in effect today.

    On March 29, in anticipation of the upcoming Biden administration rule, the DOL held a virtual higher education-specific listening session for D.C.-based higher education associations, including CUPA-HR. The listening session was scheduled after CUPA-HR and 14 other higher education associations submitted a request that the DOL hold such meetings prior to releasing the anticipated NPRM. CUPA-HR and several other higher education associations joined the session to discuss potential concerns institutions may have with an increase to the minimum salary threshold at this time.

    Regional Sessions

    In addition to the D.C. meeting held in March, the DOL is planning to host five additional regional listening sessions for employers. The sessions include the following:

    • Northeast Employers: May 13 at 3:30 p.m. EDT
    • Southeast Employers: May 17 at 2:00 p.m. EDT
    • Midwest Employers: May 20 at 3:30 p.m. EDT
    • Southwest Employers: May 27 at 3:00 p.m. EDT
    • West Employers: June 3 at 3:30 p.m. EDT

    If your institution is interested in participating in any of the regional meetings, please reach out to CUPA-HR’s Chief Government Relation Officer Josh Ulman at [email protected]. Additional information about the D.C. listening session and CUPA-HR’s talking points will be provided upon inquiry.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Submits Letter to DOL Requesting Stakeholder Meetings Prior to Anticipated Overtime Proposed Rule – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Submits Letter to DOL Requesting Stakeholder Meetings Prior to Anticipated Overtime Proposed Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 8, 2022

    On February 8, CUPA-HR and 14 higher education organizations sent a letter to the Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD)’s Acting Administrator Jessica Looman requesting that the agency engage in stakeholder meetings with the higher education community during the initial stages of the rulemaking process for the anticipated overtime rule.

    In December 2021, the DOL announced in its Fall Regulatory Agenda that it plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) this April to update the salary level to qualify for the executive, administrative and professional employee exemptions (collectively known as “white collar” or “EAP” exemptions) to the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime pay requirements. In 2015, the Obama administration’s DOL proposed an increase to the threshold of over 100 percent from $23,660 to $50,440 per year. After the comment period ended, the DOL issued a final rule in 2016 that would have increased the level to $47,476. The rule was stayed and then overturned by a federal court in 2017; however the Trump administration DOL reevaluated the rule in light of the litigation and issued a new rule in 2019 that increased the salary threshold starting January 1, 2020, to $35,568 per year.

    While the DOL has not publicly stated the salary threshold increase it is considering for the April NPRM, members of Congress and advocates have recommended that the Biden administration DOL increase the threshold by over 100 percent to at least to $82,732 by 2026.

    Given the likelihood that the DOL is feeling significant pressure from certain stakeholders to pursue a robust increase, CUPA-HR drafted the letter highlighting higher education’s significant involvement with DOL’s prior rulemakings in 2016 and 2019 and the particular concerns institutions harbored with the 100 percent increase to the salary threshold in 2016. It further explains that due to the pandemic-related workforce changes across colleges and universities, the DOL must hold stakeholder meetings with our community before issuing the anticipated overtime NPRM — as was done in 2004, 2014 to 2015, and 2019.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any actions taken by the DOL as it moves forward with the overtime rule.



    Source link