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 EEOC to Proceed With Lawsuit Against Employer Alleging Discrimination for Hosting a Women-Only Networking Retreat
A federal district court judge in New Hampshire rejected an employer’s motion to dismiss an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit against an employer alleging discrimination against male employees for hosting a women’s networking retreat. The retreat was hosted by the employer at a casino and included a reception, recreational activities and an executive speaker. The employer had argued that the EEOC failed to allege any actual harm. The judge rejected the motion to dismiss, concluding that the EEOC sufficiently alleged harm in the form of missed networking opportunities, lost paid time off and denied perks, including an employer-paid hotel stay, food and beverages (EEOC v. Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc. (D.N.H., No. 1:26-cv-00115, Mot to Dismiss Order, 10/16/26)).
The judge then ruled that the employer could try to renew its motion as a motion for summary judgment at the end of discovery arguing that the harm alleged did not sufficiently meet actionable standards.
EEOC Halves the Time Deadline for Employers to Respond to Discrimination Charges
The EEOC has shortened the applicable deadline that employers have to respond to charges alleging discrimination filed with the EEOC. The employer deadline for filing a position statement has been cut in half from 30 days to 15 days.
Commentators conclude it is an attempt by the agency to address the large backlog of cases pending before the EEOC for investigation. Commentators point out that it will allow the EEOC to shorten the investigation time and dismiss more cases rapidly.
Executive Order Requiring Federal Government Contractors to Disavow DEI Plans the Government Deems Discriminatory Allowed to Proceed
A federal district court judge ruled that the recent Trump administration executive order requiring federal government contractors to disavow diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) plans the government considers to be racially discriminatory may proceed. The judge had previously blocked other DEI orders. The judge ruled that, unlike prior DEI executive orders, the 2026 order narrowly defined illegal DEI as plans that result in intentional discrimination against White employees, which federal law already prohibits (National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (D. Ct. Md. No. 8:26-cv-01532, 10/14/26)).
Bloomberg reports that some commentators conclude that the ruling can be interpreted to follow already existing “well-settled law.” That is, no program — DEI or not — can be used to discriminate against any minority or non-minority group.
ED Finalizes Its College Accreditation Rules
The Department of Education finalized its college accreditation rules to be effective July 1, 2027. It provides for restrictions on DEI programs that discriminate against any group, including White male employees and students. The accreditation rules also address expansion of transfer credits between schools and required measuring of student outcomes after graduation. In adopting the final rule, the ED stated that accreditors have, for too long, protected the interests of higher ed institutions rather than student educational outcomes. Commentators critical of the new accreditation rules conclude that they represent an “unprecedented federal overreach that will increase regulatory burdens and costs for accreditors and colleges.”
Read more: CUPA-HR Joins Comment Letter on ED’s Accreditation Proposed Rule.
California Law Addressing Employer Captive-Audience Meetings on Religion, Politics or Unions Struck Down as an Unconstitutional Violation of the First Amendment
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California law which banned employers from terminating employees who refuse to attend “captive-audience” meetings that address religion, politics or unions. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit struck down the law on First Amendment grounds (California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta (9th Cir. No. 25-6874.10/29/26)).
The appeals court rejected California’s argument that the law regulates employer conduct, such as terminating employees who refuse to attend the captive-audience meeting, rather than employer speech. The court concluded that when the purpose of the meeting is to engage in expressive conduct, the law restricts employer speech and therefore violates the employer’s First Amendment rights.
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.