Tag: Workers

  • HELU Calls on Academic Workers to Stand Up (Higher Ed Labor United)

    HELU Calls on Academic Workers to Stand Up (Higher Ed Labor United)

    If institutions won’t stand up to the Trump administration, then it’s up to academic workers, students, communities, and citizens to stand up for them. Because we have the strongest levers of power over our local institutions. 

    While international students have become the first target on campuses, it’s important to remember that a portion of faculty (and in particular contingent faculty who are more precarious), administration, and campus service workers are also vulnerable to ICE. The consequences of these actions could have far-reaching effects. Due process of the law is not for specific groups. We all have it or no one has it. 

    This absolutely is an attempt to silence dissent in the country, especially on college campuses.

    This absolutely is authoritarianism.

    This absolutely is in line with the current attacks on higher education which were laid out in Project 2025. And in line with the crackdown on student protests before Trump took office. 

    And what’s worse is that many of our institutions are refusing to stand up for students. 

    Thankfully, unions are already responding.

    We have to rise to this moment or higher education will never be the same.

    Source link

  • Johns Hopkins to lay off 2,200 workers as it reels from Trump’s USAID cuts

    Johns Hopkins to lay off 2,200 workers as it reels from Trump’s USAID cuts

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Johns Hopkins University is moving to cut over 2,200 jobs, the largest layoffs in its history, according to a university spokesperson.
    • The layoffs are tied directly to the Trump administration’s unilateral cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which brought an $800 million funding hit to Johns Hopkins.
    • The job cuts include 1,975 international positions across 44 countries as well as 247 in the U.S, the spokesperson said. Another 29 international and 78 domestic employees will be furloughed with a reduced schedule. 

    Dive Insight:

    Earlier in March, Johns Hopkins President Ron Daniels revealed the depth of the funding gap wrought by the Trump administration’s suspension of foreign aid via executive order and efforts to gut USAID without congressional approval. Daniels said then that the university would have to wind down its projects funded by USAID grants.

    Employees in USAID-funded positions at Johns Hopkins have worked to “care for mothers and infants, fight disease, provide clean drinking water, and advance countless other critical, life-saving efforts around the world,” a university spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

    The affected jobs set for elimination are in its medical school; the Bloomberg School of Public Health, which includes the Center for Communication Programs; and Jhpiego, a nonprofit affiliate that provides medical care abroad. 

    The decimation of USAID has been challenged in court. On March 10, a federal judge issued a partial preliminary injunction in the case, saying the cuts likely violated the Constitution. 

    “The Executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place,” according to the decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Daniels previously told the campus community that federal funding cuts and the resulting chaos would likely bring reductions to the university’s personnel and budgets. 

    “Over the past six weeks, we have experienced a fast and far-reaching cascade of executive orders and agency actions affecting higher education and federally sponsored research,” Daniels said in early March. “What began as stop work orders or pauses in grant funding allocations has morphed into cancellations and terminations.”

    In addition to the USAID fallout, Johns Hopkins faces many millions in shortfalls from the National Institutes of Health’s move to cap funding for institutions’ indirect research costs at 15%. 

    The university is among those suing NIH to block the cap, which plaintiffs say violates federal law, regulation and agency authority. In court papers, Laurent Heller, Johns Hopkins’ executive vice president for finance and administration, said the institution received over $1 billion in funding from NIH in fiscal 2024. Of that, $281.4 million covers indirect costs, one of the largest of which is physical space. 

    The funding helps support clinical trials for treatments related to cancer, pediatrics, heart, lungs, brain, liver and other areas, as well as other research and services. 

    “The proposal to cap indirect cost rates at 15% could end, seriously jeopardize, or require significant scaling back of the projects and infrastructure described above, as well as hundreds more projects of importance for life-saving medical discoveries, treatments, cares, and cures,” Heller said.

    There again, a court has ruled that the administration likely overstepped its authority. A judge overseeing several cases against NIH issued an injunction in March compelling the agency to keep paying negotiated rates for indirect costs as the case continues. 

    The funding cuts represent a risk of “halting life-saving clinical trials, disrupting the development of innovative medical research and treatment, and shuttering of research facilities, without regard for current patient care,” the judge wrote.

    Harvard University, Columbia University, Northwestern University and many other higher ed institutions have announced hiring freezes and cutbacks amid uncertainty over NIH and other federal funding sources.

    Source link

  • Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

    Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

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

    A worker who was fired by Liberty University for disclosing her transgender status and announcing her intention to transition may proceed with her employment discrimination case against the institution, a Virginia district court judge ruled Feb. 21 (Zinski v. Liberty University). 

    The case involved a worker who was hired in February 2023 as an IT apprentice at the university’s IT help desk. She received positive performance reviews until July of that year, when she emailed Liberty’s HR department, explaining that she was a transgender woman, had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and would be legally changing her name, according to court documents. An HR representative promised to follow up with her.

    Shortly thereafter, after hearing nothing, the worker reached out again and was scheduled for a meeting later the same day. She was presented with a letter terminating her employment and explaining that her decision to transition violated Liberty’s religious beliefs and its Doctrinal Statement. 

    In response to the worker’s lawsuit, Liberty University argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (among other laws) allow religious employers to discriminate on the basis of religion, contending that the worker’s firing was religion-based rather than sex-based in discriminatory nature. 

    While Judge Norman Moon appreciated that the case presents a “novel question of law in the Fourth Circuit,” he ultimately found current case law didn’t fully or clearly support the university’s argument. 

    “If discharge based upon transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII generally, it follows that the same should be true for religious employers, who, it has been shown, were not granted an exception from the prohibition against sex discrimination,” Judge Moon said in his order denying the university’s motion to dismiss the case. “They have been entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion but on no other grounds.”

    Judge Moon pointed out that “no source of law … answers the question before us,” but “we find that a decision to the contrary would portend far-reaching and detrimental consequences for our system of civil law and the separation between church and state.”

    “This case — and the law it implicates — points to the delicate balance between two competing and laudable objectives: eradicating discrimination in employment, on the one hand, and affording religious institutions the freedom to cultivate a workforce that conforms to its doctrinal principles, on the other,” Moon wrote. “We find that our holding today — that religious institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, even if motivated by religion — most appropriately maintains this balance.”

    Source link

  • Haskell Indian Nations U lays off probationary workers

    Haskell Indian Nations U lays off probationary workers

    Haskell Indian Nations University, a small tribal college in Lawrence, Kan., laid off nearly 30 percent of its faculty and staff to comply with the Trump administration’s directive to shrink the size of the federal workforce. 

    An order came through the Office of Personnel Management Feb. 13 to fire all probationary employees who had not yet gained civil service protection.

    Haskell is one of two tribal colleges funded by the Department of the Interior. As of fall 2022, the institution had 727 full-time students and employed 146 faculty and staff. Local news reports that about 40 probationary employees have been laid off.  

    The Haskell Board of Regents said in a statement that it was “closely monitoring the recent directive from the Office of Personnel Management, which has resulted in the termination of certain probationary federal employees across multiple agencies. At this time, the Board has not received confirmation that Haskell Indian Nations University is exempt from these layoffs.”

    A member of Haskell’s Board of Regents said the layoffs are in “basically every department on campus”—faculty, student services, athletics, IT and more, according to The Lawrence Times.

    The institution has faced recent turmoil, running through eight presidents in six years and being subject to a congressional investigation over failing to address student concerns about sexual assault.

    In December, Kansas Republican senator Jerry Moran and Republican representative Tracey Mann put forward legislation to take the college out of the hands of federal oversight and transfer it to a Haskell Board of Trustees appointed by the tribal community.

    Source link

  • Workers are cannibalised by the capitalist class (Nancy Fraser)

    Workers are cannibalised by the capitalist class (Nancy Fraser)

    The world is facing multiple crises simultaneously: Climate change, the rise of authoritarian movements, and the exploitation of labor from the Global South, among others. Professor of philosophy and politics at the New School, Nancy Fraser, says “it can’t be a coincidence” – at the root of it all is capitalism.

    Source link

  • Bernie Sanders Proposes 20,000 Fellowships for American Students to take STEM Jobs from H1B Foreign Workers

    Bernie Sanders Proposes 20,000 Fellowships for American Students to take STEM Jobs from H1B Foreign Workers







    Higher Education Inquirer : Bernie Sanders Proposes 20,000 Fellowships for American Students to take STEM Jobs from H1B Foreign Workers




    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Regulations on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Regulations on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 17, 2024

    On April 15, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its long-awaited final regulations and interpretative guidance on the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The EEOC states in its press release that the final rule is intended to offer “important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law.” It provides guidance to employers and workers “about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, and how individuals can request reasonable accommodations.” The regulations will be published in the Federal Register on April 19 and go into effect 60 days later.

    The PWFA, which was signed into law in December 2022, requires most employers with 15 or more employees “to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.” It passed Congress with strong bipartisan support.

    Known Limitations

    Under the regulation, “limitations” include both physical and mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The regulations specify that the definition of a limitation “shall be construed broadly to the maximum extent permitted by the PWFA.” A limitation “may be a modest, minor, and/or episodic impediment or problem” and can be related to current or past pregnancies, potential or intended pregnancies, and labor and childbirth.

    The examples of limitations provided in the rule include miscarriage or stillbirth, migraines, lactation, postpartum depression, and pregnancy-related episodic conditions, such as morning sickness, but the list is not intended to be exhaustive. The limitation may be “a need or a problem related to maintaining [the worker’s] health or the health of the pregnancy,” and it “need not be caused solely, originally, or substantially by pregnancy or childbirth.” Related medical conditions can include conditions that existed before pregnancy or childbirth but are exacerbated by the pregnancy or childbirth.

    The employee or their representative must communicate the limitation to the employer to receive a reasonable accommodation. The employee and employer should engage in an interactive process to determine if a worker’s limitation qualifies for a reasonable accommodation and the appropriate accommodation.

    Reasonable Accommodations

    Under the final rule, “reasonable accommodations” have the same definition as under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They include modifications or adjustments to the application process, to the work environment or how the work is performed, and that allow the employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by similarly situated employees without known limitations. It also includes modifications or adjustments to allow a covered employee to temporarily suspend one or more essential functions of the job.

    The rule provides several examples of reasonable accommodations that may be appropriate under the act. These include but are not limited to additional breaks, allowing the worker to sit while they work, temporary reassignment or suspension of certain job duties, telework, or time off to recover. Leave can be requested even if the employer does not offer leave as an employee benefit, the employee is not eligible for the employer’s leave policy, or the employee has used up their allotted leave under the employer’s policy.

    Reasonable accommodations are limited to the individual who has a PWFA-covered limitation; it does not extend to an individual who is associated with someone with a qualifying limitation or someone with a limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of someone else’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition. The regulations specifically clarify that “time for bonding or time for childcare” are not covered by the PWFA.

    Undue Hardship

    The rule explains that an employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it would cause an “undue hardship,” or a significant difficulty or expense. The rule includes a variety of factors that should be considered when determining if a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship, including the nature and net cost of the accommodation; the overall financial resources of the facility or covered entity; the type of operations of the covered entity; and the impact of the accommodation on operations, including on the ability of other employees to perform their duties or the facility’s ability to conduct business.

    The rule provides several factors to consider when analyzing whether an accommodation involving the temporary suspension of essential functions of the position qualifies as an undue hardship. These include the length of time the employee will not be able to perform the essential function; whether there is work for the employee to accomplish; the nature of the essential function; the employer’s history of providing temporary suspensions to other, similarly situated employees; whether other employees can perform the functions; and whether the essential functions can be postponed.

    Other Provisions

    The rule also encourages “early and frequent communication between employers and workers” in order “to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.” Employers are also instructed that they are not required to request supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation; they should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.

    Controversies Surrounding the Regulations

    While the PWFA was passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support, the EEOC has faced significant pushback about the implementing regulations.

    The EEOC’s delay in issuing these regulations caused considerable frustration from employers. The PWFA went into effect in June 2023, which was when employers were required to comply with the law and the EEOC began accepting claims of discrimination under the act. Without the implementing regulations, however, employers had no certainty as to how to comply, leaving them exposed to potential liability.

    The most significant criticism stemmed from the regulation’s implications around abortion. In fact, of the nearly 100,000 comments the EEOC received in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking on the regulations, over 96,000 discussed the regulation’s inclusion of abortion. The final rule clarifies that “having or choosing not to have an abortion” qualifies as a medical condition under the regulations. Several Republican members of Congress accused the EEOC of using the regulations to further the Biden administration’s pro-choice agenda. EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, however, defended the language, saying it is consistent with legal precedent and the agency’s interpretations of other civil rights statutes under their jurisdiction. The regulation clarifies that employers will not be required to pay for abortions or travel-related expenses for an employee to obtain an abortion. The EEOC specifies they expect the most likely accommodation related to abortion will be leave to attend a medical appointment or recover from a procedure. Several conservative organizations are threatening legal action against the final rule.

    Litigation Challenging the PWFA

    On February 27, 2024, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the House of Representatives lacked a quorum when it passed the PWFA, because over 200 representatives voted by proxy. The Constitution required that a quorum be present for the House to conduct business, but in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the House allowed for proxy voting. The court found Congress violated the Constitution when it passed the law and blocked enforcement of the act against the state of Texas and its agencies. The law is in effect elsewhere in the United States, but other legal challenges may follow Texas’s approach.



    Source link

  • December Policy Roundup: Paid Leave Policy, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations, and Workforce Development Initiatives – CUPA-HR

    December Policy Roundup: Paid Leave Policy, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations, and Workforce Development Initiatives – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2024

    Through December and into the new calendar year, federal government leaders kept busy with Congressional hearings and markups, new legislation, and proposed and final rules focusing on issues that may be of significance to higher education HR professionals. CUPA-HR tracked several actions from both Congress and federal agencies on issues including paid family leave, short-term Pell Grants, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and workforce development.

    House Education and Workforce Committee Markup

    On December 12, 2023, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a full committee markup on H.R. 6585, the Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act, and H.R. 6655, A Stronger Workforce for America Act.

    The Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, allowing students to use Pell Grants for eight-week or longer educational programs. This bill also establishes quality control measures for Pell initiatives, enabling higher education institutions to participate if they meet specific criteria. The committee voted to move the legislation out of committee with 37 members voting in favor and 8 members voting against the bill.

    The next bill, A Stronger Workforce for America Act, seeks to renew and enhance the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Originally established in 2014, WIOA has been extended through yearly appropriations since fiscal year 2021. The bill incorporates multiple measures to modernize WIOA, bolstering the country’s workforce development to better equip and retain workers. The bill passed through the committee with bipartisan support; 44 members voted in favor of and only one member voted against it.

    Paid Leave Request for Information

    On December 13, the Congressional Bipartisan Paid Family Leave Working Group published a Request for Information (RFI) for diverse stakeholder input to aid in the expansion of access to paid parental, caregiving, and personal medical leave nationwide. The members encouraged interested stakeholders to submit letters that answer these ten questions on the role the federal government can play in creating a national paid leave program.

    Responses must be submitted by January 31, 2024, and can be directed to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. CUPA-HR will continue to track developments and intends to collaborate with associate organizations to submit feedback on an as-needed basis.

    National Apprenticeship System Enhancement Proposed Rule

    On December 14, the Department of Labor (DOL) unveiled a proposed rule to modernize the regulations for Registered Apprenticeship programs. The 779-page proposal focuses on provisions to create “safeguards for apprentices to ensure that they have healthy and safe working and learning environments as well as just and equitable opportunities throughout their participation in a registered apprenticeship program,” while also creating baseline requirements for career and technical education apprenticeships, which would target high school and postsecondary students to programs that align more closely with programs found at institutions of higher education.

    DOL is providing a 60-day comment period for the proposed rule, which will commence once the regulation is posted in the Federal Register. CUPA-HR is analyzing the rule and will coordinate with other higher education associations as needed to file comments.

    Federal Transit Authority General Directive on Assaults on Transit Workers

    On December 20, the Department of Transportation (DOT)’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposed a General Directive to address the ongoing national safety risk concerning assaults on transit workers. Transit agencies falling under FTA’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans directive would be instructed to conduct safety risk assessments, identify mitigation strategies, and report discoveries to FTA. Per the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, transit agencies operating in urban areas must collaborate with the joint labor-management safety committees to reduce safety hazards.

    The deadline for submitting comments in the Federal Register is February 20, 2024, but late submissions may be considered. CUPA-HR is working with members and other higher education associations to determine the impact that this directive may have on transportation and HR services at institutions of higher education.

    Regulations to Implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    On December 27, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sent its final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review prior to its publication in the Federal Register. The final rule will likely look very similar to the proposed rule that was issued in August 2023, which provides a framework for how the EEOC plans to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA.

    The EEOC was tasked by law with finalizing regulations to implement the PWFA by December 29, 2023. Given the missed deadline, OIRA may move quickly on its review of the regulations, and we could see the final rule published sometime between late January and late February. CUPA-HR is continuing to monitor for any updates and will keep members apprised of any new details that may arise in the final rule.



    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

  • Congress and Federal Agencies Consider Paid-Leave Proposals and Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Workers – CUPA-HR

    Congress and Federal Agencies Consider Paid-Leave Proposals and Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Workers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 24, 2023

    Over the past year, lawmakers have taken an increased interest in establishing and expanding upon benefits and protections for paid leave and pregnant workers. As a result, Congress passed two bills granting workplace protections to pregnant and nursing mothers at the end of 2022, while  considering new federal proposals for paid family and medical leave. This post details some of the recent actions taken by lawmakers toward a federal paid-leave policy, as well as updates from federal agencies on the enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act.

    Bipartisan Working Group on Paid Leave

    In April, a group of bipartisan lawmakers in the House of Representatives established the Bipartisan Paid Family Leave Working Group, the goal of which “is to create a bipartisan paid family leave policy that supports American families and businesses.” The group consists of three Republicans — Reps. Stephanie Bice (R-OK), Julia Letlow (R-LA) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) — and three Democrats — Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Colin Allred (D-TX) and Haley Stevens (D-MI).

    In a letter establishing the working group, the lawmakers expressed their intention to explore both state and federal policies that already exist with the goal of creating an established paid-leave policy. The letter discusses both the successes and areas to improve of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and it states that there is a bipartisan consensus that paid leave is an issue that needs to become law.

    FAMILY Act

    On May 17, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) reintroduced the FAMILY Act, which would grant up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees at companies of all sizes through funds collected by payroll taxes paid by both employees and employers. The FAMILY Act was first introduced in 2013, but the most recent bill expands upon previous text by creating a progressive scale for wage replacement during the time off. Under the bill, the lowest paid workers would be eligible to receive up to 85 percent of their wages during their time off, while the average full-time worker would receive approximately two-thirds of their wages. Additionally, the bill extends coverage to include time off taken to address personal incidents with domestic violence, stalking and/or sexual assault.

    While most Democrats have championed the FAMILY Act as their preferred proposal for paid leave, the bill is unlikely to gain Republican support and will therefore not pass the House during this Congress. Republicans have previously opposed the bill, arguing against the proposed tax increases as well as potential burdens employers may face as a result of a paid-leave mandate. Instead, Republicans who have shown interest in advancing paid-leave policies have considered programs allowing individuals to borrow from their Social Security funds, incentivizing the creation of a private insurance system for leave pay, and providing tax credits to pay for time off.

    PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

    On May 18, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) with enforcement information and public guidance for the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. The law went into effect on April 28, after being included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 year-end legislation to fund the federal government.

    As a reminder, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds on existing protections in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Provision by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. Specifically, the bill ensures reasonable time and space for working individuals to pump in their workplaces as well as remedies for employer violations of the act.

    The FAB provides details on the requirements for reasonable space and break time, compensation, and employer posting of FLSA requirements as provided under the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. Employers and field staff alike may use the FAB document as a resource to understand compliance with the act as enforced by WHD.

    Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    Alongside the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, the PWFA was also signed into law under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The effective date of the PWFA is June 27, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was expected to issue proposed regulations on how best to govern and enforce the PWFA by then.

    As of May, however, the EEOC has yet to release any proposed regulations, and it seems likely that the agency will not be able to issue a proposed rule by the June 27 date. The commission currently has two Democratic and two Republican commissioners, and given the need for a majority of commissioners to vote to advance a rulemaking, the agency is unable to move proposed rules forward because commissioners are split along party lines. Through the legislation, Congress has allowed the EEOC through the end of 2023 to finalize a rulemaking on the PWFA, which may or may not be achieved,  depending on whether the Senate is able to confirm Kalpana Kotagal as the third Democratic appointee on the commission. In lieu of the proposed rulemaking, the EEOC has issued guidance on the law through an FAQ webpage addressing the protections granted under the law, which stakeholders may use as they wait for the official regulations.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor any developments related to these proposals and laws and will keep members apprised of any policy updates related to paid leave and protections for pregnant and nursing workers.



    Source link