Tag: Rule

  • Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judges Block Title IX Rule in 10 States – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 17, 2024

    Updates:
    On June 17, a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky issued a second preliminary injunction against the Title IX rule, blocking the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia.

    On June 24, the Biden administration filed a notice of appeal for the preliminary injunction granted in the Western District Court of Louisiana to block the Title IX final rule from going into effect on August 1, 2024. The appeal will be filed in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The preliminary injunction remains in effect until the 5th Circuit Court issues a decision. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this appeal as well as the status of the second preliminary injunction granted in the Eastern District Court of Kentucky.

    On July 2, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Kansas issued a third preliminary injunction to block the Biden administration’s Title IX rule from taking effect on August 1. The preliminary injunction applies to four states: Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. The preliminary injunction also applies to schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty attend, even if the state in which the school is located is not challenging the rule or is not included in another preliminary injunction. The Title IX rule is now blocked from being enforced beginning on August 1 in a total of 14 states, as well as over 360 institutions in 24 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico that are not suing the Biden administration over the Title IX rule.

    On July 11, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to block the Department of Education from implementing and enforcing its Title IX final rule. The vote is largely symbolic as the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the measure and President Biden would veto the resolution if it ended up on his desk.

    On July 11, a federal judge in the Northern District Court of Texas granted a fourth preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1 in the state of Texas. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect in 15 states.

    On July 24, a federal judge from the Eastern District Court of Missouri issued another preliminary injunction to block the Title IX rule from taking effect in six more states. The states included in this decision were Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Title IX final rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1 in a total of 21 states.

    On July 31, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Oklahoma granted a preliminary injunction to block the Title IX final rule from taking effect on August 1. Additionally, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, overturning a lower court’s previous decision to deny the preliminary injunction in those states. There are 26 states in which the Title IX rule is now blocked from taking effect on August 1.

    On June 13, a federal judge in the Western District Court of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction on the Department of Education (ED)’s recent Title IX final rule. The order blocks the final rule from taking effect on August 1 in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho until a final decision has been issued by the judge on a lawsuit challenging the validity of the final rule.

    ED’s Final Rule and Subsequent Lawsuits

    In April, ED released its highly anticipated final rule to amend the Title IX regulations. Notably, the final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. Soon after it was published, several lawsuits were filed by states and advocacy groups challenging ED’s decision to expand Title IX protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. 

    Judge’s Order

    In the order to grant a preliminary injunction, the federal judge asserted that the Title IX rulemaking is “contrary to law” and “exceeds statutory authority,” especially with the expanded protections for transgender students. Specifically, the judge explained that Congress intended to protect biological women from discrimination when enacting Title IX, and that “enacting the changes in the final rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX.”

    As a result, ED is blocked from enforcing the final rule in the four states listed in the order, and the final rule will not take effect on August 1 in those four states until further orders are issued by the court.* The judge will now consider the lawsuit challenging the final rule and decide to either uphold or strike down the rule. A final decision may take months or a year or more to be released, as any decision is likely to be appealed to a higher court. In the meantime, CUPA-HR encourages HR leaders in the states impacted by this preliminary to work with their institution’s general counsel on best practices for navigating Title IX compliance.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the legal challenges against the Title IX final rule.

    * Over two dozen states have joined lawsuits challenging the Title IX final rule. Though the order in this blog post applies only to Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho, decisions for the additional lawsuits could result in similar injunctions for other states.



    Source link

  • Overtime Rule Challenged in Federal Court – CUPA-HR

    Overtime Rule Challenged in Federal Court – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 23, 2024

    On May 23, a group of 13 local and national associations and Texas businesses filed suit in federal court in Texas, challenging the U.S. Department of Labor’s rule setting new minimum salary thresholds for the white collar overtime pay exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

    The final rule of April 23, 2024 increases the minimum salary threshold to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. The rule also implements automatic updates to the threshold that will occur every three years. The suit claims that the salary threshold that goes into effect on January 1, 2025, is so high it will 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 violates both the statutory language of the FLSA and prior court decisions. The suit also challenges the automatic updates.

    The following are plaintiffs in the case: Plano Chamber of Commerce, American Hotel and Lodging Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, International Franchise Association, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Federation of Independent Business, National Retail Federation, Restaurant Law Center, Texas Restaurant Association, Cooper General Contractors and Dase Blinds.

    CUPA-HR will be following the case closely and provide you with regular updates.



    Source link

  • DOL Increases Overtime Minimum Salary Threshold to $58,656 in Final Rule, Implements Automatic Updates – CUPA-HR

    DOL Increases Overtime Minimum Salary Threshold to $58,656 in Final Rule, Implements Automatic Updates – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 23, 2024

    On April 23, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued the highly anticipated final rule to alter the overtime pay regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule increases the minimum salary threshold to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. The rule also implements automatic updates to the threshold that will occur every three years. Institutions will need to make all necessary adjustments by July 1, 2024, in order to be in compliance with the final rule.

    The department clarified that the first increase updates the minimum salary threshold using the department’s current methodology, which was used in the 2019 Trump-era overtime rulemaking to set the current standard of $35,568. The second increase then implements the department’s new preferred methodology, which sets the minimum salary threshold to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest wage census region. This phased-in implementation will likely impact how litigation challenging the rule is both pursued and decided over the next six months.

    In September 2023, DOL issued its proposed rule to update the minimum salary threshold, which sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. The proposed rule also sought to implement triennial automatic updates based on the 35th percentile.

    CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the proposed rule and participated in a meeting with DOL and officials from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to express our concerns with the proposal. In both the comments and OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR made the four following recommendations for DOL to consider before issuing their final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. DOL should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
    3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
    4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.

    Lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will be hosting a webinar on May 8 covering the provisions of the final rule and its impact on higher education. Registration is open and free to all.



    Source link

  • ED Releases Final Title IX Rule – CUPA-HR

    ED Releases Final Title IX Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 19, 2024

    On April 19, the Department of Education (ED) released the text of the highly anticipated Title IX final rule. The final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions. The rule also revokes both the Trump administration’s ban on campuses using a single person to investigate and adjudicate Title IX complaints and the Trump mandate regarding cross-examination of complainants. Institutions will need to be in compliance with the final rule by August 1, 2024.

    Background

    The ED released the text of the proposed rule on June 23, 2022, though the Federal Register did not officially publish the proposal until several weeks later on July 12, 2022. The agency received over 240,000 comments in response, including CUPA-HR comments seeking clarification on the overlaps between the ED’s proposal with institutions’ existing obligations to address employment discrimination. CUPA-HR also joined comments led by the American Council on Education.

    Noteworthy Provisions of the Final Rule

    As discussed above, the final rule defines “sex-based harassment” as a form of sex discrimination that includes sexual harassment and harassment based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy or related conditions. The term “pregnancy or related conditions” is further defined in the final rule to include pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, lactation, and all related medical conditions and recovery.

    Additionally, as first introduced in the proposed rule, the final rule establishes new grievance procedures for sex-based harassment complaints. Specifically, the final rule requires institutions to apply two separate grievance procedures for sex-based harassment complaints depending on whether or not students are involved. The first section (§106.45) applies to any complaint of sex discrimination on campus, including employee-to-employee sex-based harassment complaints. The second section (§ 106.46) only applies when a student is involved as either the complainant or respondent (or both), regardless of whether the matter also involves employees. Notably, the second set of procedures also applies where a student is also an employee. The new rules also allow for certain complaints to move through an informal resolution process separate from the grievance procedures listed above if both parties agree to choose to move forward with that process.

    The final rule also imposes several training requirements, which the ED also included in the proposed rule. Under the rule, institutions must train all employees on the institution’s obligation to address sex discrimination under Title IX, the scope of conduct that constitutes sex discrimination under the law, and the notification and information requirements that applicable employees must follow upon learning about instances of sex-based harassment. Additionally, institutions must train individuals who serve as investigators, decisionmakers, and others responsible for implementing an institution’s grievance procedures on the institution’s grievance procedures and how to serve impartially through the grievance procedures. Facilitators of the informal resolution process must be trained on the rules and practices of an institution’s informal resolution process, and the institution must train individuals serving as Title IX coordinators on the requirements of their specific responsibilities throughout the notification, information, and grievance procedure processes as required by Title IX.

    Finally, the rule clarifies that when responding to retaliation, institutions must undergo all procedures for notifying and informing involved parties of their obligations under Title IX and initiate the appropriate grievance procedures.

    Looking Forward

    CUPA-HR’s government relations team is going through the 1,577-page final rule and will provide more information on the rule as needed through CUPA-HR’s blog. Additionally, CUPA-HR will host a webinar to cover the final rule on April 30. Registration is now open and is free for all to attend.



    Source link

  • White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2024

    On April 10, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the Department of Education’s (ED) final rule to amend Title IX. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect the ED will issue the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as ED publishes the final rule.

    The ED released the text of the proposed rule on June 23, 2022, though the Federal Register did not officially publish the proposal until several weeks later on July 12, 2022. The agency received over 240,000 comments in response, including CUPA-HR comments seeking clarification on the overlaps between the ED’s proposal with institutions’ existing obligations to address employment discrimination. CUPA-HR also joined comments led by the American Council on Education.

    The Federal Government’s Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda had set the target release date of the final rule for May 2023, but the Department had to further delay that timeline to review all comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and address them in the final rule. Most recently, the ED indicated a March 2024 release of the final rule in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

    CUPA-HR plans to hold a timely webinar on the final rule after publication. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the Title IX final rule, including completion of the review and publication of the rule.



    Source link

  • White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 11, 2024

    On April 11, 2024, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime pay rule. The rule is expected to increase the minimum salary threshold for the executive, administrative and professional (EAP or white collar) employee exemptions to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect DOL will release the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as the final rule is released.

    On April 4, 2024, CUPA-HR’s president and CEO, government relations team and board members met with officials from DOL and OIRA to express our concerns with the September 2023 proposed rule. The proposal sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. DOL also proposed increasing the salary threshold automatically every three years to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers. Finally, DOL proposed that all employers would need to implement these changes within 60 days of the final rule’s release.

    During our OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR reiterated the concerns that were addressed in our comments submitted in November 2023. The comments made the following four recommendations for DOL to consider prior to issuing a final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. If DOL implements an increase, it should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
    3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
    4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.

    We expect lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of all updates related to the overtime regulations. Once the new regulations are released, we will plan and share registration information for a webinar. We will also provide an update for members who attend the spring conference in Minneapolis next week.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Participates in OIRA Meeting on FLSA Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Participates in OIRA Meeting on FLSA Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 9, 2024

    On April 4, CUPA-HR’s government relations team, President and CEO Andy Brantley, and four national board members met with officials at the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to discuss the upcoming overtime regulations to increase the minimum salary threshold. During the call, the group expressed CUPA-HR’s broad concerns with the rule, as well as the specific challenges implementation of the new rule could create for different types of institutions in various areas of the country.

    On March 1, DOL sent the final rule to update the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations to OIRA for review. As previously noted, the OIRA review marks one of the last steps required before DOL can publish the final rule for public viewing. While the rule is at OIRA, the text and details of the final rule are not public, but interested stakeholders are able to request meetings with the administrator to discuss the proposed changes.

    During the meeting, Andy Brantley and Bailey Graves from the CUPA-HR government relations team reiterated the concerns that were addressed in CUPA-HR’s comments submitted in November 2023. The comments made the following four recommendations for DOL to consider prior to issuing a final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. DOL should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
    3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
    4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.

    Brantley and Graves were joined by CUPA-HR Board Chair Jami Painter, Chair-Elect Robyn Salvo, and board members El pagnier Hudson and Kristi Yowell, who discussed the impact of these potential changes on employee exempt/nonexempt status and employee morale and benefits. They also discussed the impact of the rule on higher education’s efforts to offer competitive wages to employees, the difficulties of having employees in areas with different costs of living, and the impact this rule could have on an institution’s ability to provide student services.

    Looking Forward

    It is unknown when the final rule will clear OIRA review and be published for public viewing. OIRA review typically lasts 30-60 days, and OIRA meetings are currently set through April 11. However, the Biden administration has incentive to move quickly to publish the final rule in order to avoid the rule being overturned via legislation if Republicans win Congress and the White House in the November election.

    The final rule will also likely face legal action once it is published, which could delay the effective date or stop the rule from going into effect in its entirety. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of when the final rule clears OIRA review and is published, as well as any legal challenges that may arise.



    Source link

  • OSHA Issues Worker Walkaround Rule – CUPA-HR

    OSHA Issues Worker Walkaround Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 4, 2024

    On April 1, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a final rule on the Worker Walkaround Representative Designation Process. The rule allows third-party representatives to accompany OSHA inspectors during physical workplace inspections.

    Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and existing regulations to implement the law, employer representatives and authorized representatives of employees are allowed the opportunity to accompany OSHA inspectors during workplace inspections. The existing regulations state that authorized representatives of the employee are limited to employees of the employer, though OSHA inspectors may allow accompaniment by a third party that is not an employee if it is “reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection.”

    The new rule broadens the category of who may serve as an authorized representative of the employee by explicitly including third parties as potential authorized representatives. The rule clarifies that third-party employee representatives may accompany the OSHA inspector when “good cause has been shown why accompaniment by a third party is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace (including but not limited to because of their relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions in the workplace or similar workplaces, or language or communication skills).” This new language makes it easier for non-employees, such as union officials, to potentially be involved in the inspection process.

    The final rule largely mirrors the proposed rule that was published in October 2023. Nearly 11,000 comments were submitted in response to the proposal, and employers across several industries have expressed concern with the rule, including concerns with the lack of mechanisms for employers to object to the selection of non-employee third-party representatives. Additionally, employers were concerned about the increased liability that they could face from non-employees walking around their worksite and the possible costs of providing personal protective equipment to non-employee third-party representatives when needed for inspections.

    The rule goes into effect on May 31, 2024, but it is expected to face legal challenges that could delay the effective date. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the status of this rule.

     



    Source link

  • District Court Invalidates NLRB’s Joint-Employer Rule – CUPA-HR

    District Court Invalidates NLRB’s Joint-Employer Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 13, 2024

    On March 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas invalidated the National Labor Relations Board’s joint-employer final rule, meaning the rule did not go into effect on March 11, as was anticipated. The NLRB will likely appeal the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The final rule expanded the joint-employer standard under the National Labor Relations Act, which is used to determine when two or more entities are jointly responsible for setting the terms and conditions of employment over a shared group of employees. Joint-employer status comes with significant responsibilities and liabilities under the law, including bargaining with any union representing the shared employees and being liable for any NLRA violations either employer commits against those employees.

    Traditionally, joint-employer status was only triggered if the potential joint employer exercised direct and immediate control over the shared workers’ terms and conditions of employment, including hiring, firing, disciplining, supervising, and directing the employees. The final rule, however, would have expanded joint-employer status to entities that have indirect or unexercised, reserved control over the terms and conditions of employment.

    The decision from the district court invalidates the ruling, halting implementation and reinstating the traditional joint-employer standard. As the judge in the case explained, the rule was too broad and violated the NLRA. Specifically, the judge stated it “would treat virtually every entity that contracts for labor as a joint employer because virtually every contract for third-party labor has terms that impact, at least indirectly … essential terms and conditions of employment.”

    Details of the appeal and subsequent decision from the the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be shared in the coming months. If the NLRB wins on appeal and the rule is eventually implemented, it will apply to private-sector higher education institutions. It will impact colleges’ and universities’ relationships with many of their contractors whose employees perform work on campus, including food service, security and landscaping services.

    CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of updates regarding the status of the NLRB’s joint-employer rule.



    Source link

  • New Instructions Clarify USCIS Fee Rule Reductions and Exemptions for Higher Ed – CUPA-HR

    New Instructions Clarify USCIS Fee Rule Reductions and Exemptions for Higher Ed – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 6, 2024

    On March 1, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published updated forms and filing instructions for the I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker and the I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. These updates incorporate new fee calculations as outlined in the USCIS fee rule. Notably, the filing instructions state that institutions “of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965” are eligible for the reduced fees and exemption from the Asylum Program fee.

    This clarification follows the issuance of a final rule by USCIS on January 31, 2024, which adjusted the fees for most immigration applications and petitions, resulting in significantly higher fees for most employment-based petitioners. However, due to concerns raised by stakeholders, including CUPA-HR and other higher education institutions, the final rule provided relief for nonprofit organizations in the form of fee reductions as well as an exemption from a newly introduced fee intended to fund the Asylum Program.

    In a previous blog post, CUPA-HR addressed the confusion stemming from the final rule’s reliance on the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a nonprofit organization, particularly 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). This definition caused uncertainty among public universities and colleges, which, while tax-exempt, are not classified as 501(c)(3) entities. The preamble to the final rule suggested that the agency’s approach to defining “nonprofit” was designed to ensure that the primary types of organizations eligible for the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act’s fee reduction — specifically, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and governmental research organizations — would also qualify for fee reductions and exemptions under this rule. However, the possibility of a strict interpretation of “nonprofit” might have left public universities and colleges facing increased fees.

    The updated filing instructions offer much-needed clarity on the fee reductions and exemptions, ensuring that institutions of higher education as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965 will not be overly burdened by petitioner fees.



    Source link