HR and the Courts — February 2023

Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

Supreme Court May Consider the Propriety of the Court-Created “Adverse Employment Action” Rule, Limiting Title VII Complaints

The Supreme Court has asked the U.S. government (the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) to weigh in on whether it should hear two cases challenging the court-created “adverse employment action” rule, which limits consideration of Title VII complaints to those involving an “adverse employment action.”

The first case involves a female police officer who alleged that she was transferred out of her department because of her sex. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska) affirmed the dismissal of the case because it found no adverse employment action where the transfer did not involve a loss of pay and rank or level of responsibilities. 

The second case involves a former head of an Alabama legal services group who challenged the decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alabama, Georgia and Florida), which affirmed the dismissal of his case on “adverse employment action” grounds where the suspension challenged because of his race was a suspension with pay, and did not involve the loss of any wages or benefits.  

Both plaintiffs claim that the “adverse employment action” requirement was court-created and not part of the actual Title VII statute. They both claim that the change in job status, which was the subject of their complaint, was involuntary, not to their liking, and based on their protected-class status. Therefore, they claim it should be actionable under terms of the Title VII statute. Both defendants oppose, claiming there is no conflict between the circuits.  

Professor’s Bias Case Dismissed for Failure to Establish “Pervasive” Harassment, and HR Warning Not a “Substantial Adverse Employment Action”

A Texas Court of Appeals recently overruled a trial court and dismissed a professor of Indian descent’s bias claims filed under the Texas state anti-discrimination statute. The appellate court concluded that the professor’s complaints of coworker comments reflecting negatively on his national origin did not rise to the level of “pervasive” harassment. Additionally, his complaint that he received a warning from HR about a complaint, which was previously closed, did not rise to the level of a “substantial adverse employment action,” and therefore was not actionable (Texas Southern University v. Nayer (Tex. App. 1st Dist. No. 01-21-00497-CV, 1/10/23)).

The plaintiff, who is originally from India, was hired by the university in 2009 as an assistant professor in the administration of justice department. He was promoted to associate professor, received tenure and was appointed interim department chair in 2016. The professor alleged that coworkers used the term “you people” as a racial epithet to address him in emails and that he had received a warning from HR relating to a complaint which had been closed. While the trial court ruled he was entitled to a jury trial over his discrimination claims, the appellate court reversed the ruling and dismissed the case for failure to establish “pervasive” harassment and failure to raise a “substantial adverse employment action.   

In 2022, U.S. Labor Unions Engaged in the Most Strikes Since 2007, With Education Service Employees the Majority of Employees Engaged in Strike Activity 

More than 225,000 employees engaged in 314 strikes last year, more strikes than in any year since 2007. Education service employees accounted for three out of every five of those workers, according to an analysis report by Bloomberg News. The largest strike of the year was at the University of California, where approximately 48,000 graduate student workers were on strike for six weeks demanding increased wages and changes to working conditions. This strike was the largest strike occurring at any college or university since 1990, according to the Bloomberg database. The graduate student workers were represented by the United Auto Workers Union.  

The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association engaged in the second highest number of work stoppages during 2022, surpassed only by the Service Employees Union. Collectively, these two unions had the largest share of union members involved in strike activity in 2022. Analysts conclude that dual economic factors in 2022 led to the increase in strike activity. The factors noted were a very tight labor market and rising inflation. Union leaders also claim that many other contract negotiations narrowly avoided strike situations as a result of diligent negotiation activity on both sides of the table.  

Nonetheless, overall union membership dropped to a historic low percentage of the U.S. workforce in 2023. The unionized percentage of the American workforce dropped to 10.1 percent, lower than the previous low of 10.3 percent, recorded in 2019. While union membership actually increased in 2022 by some 273,000 employees, it was not enough to keep pace with the even larger growth on non-union jobs in 2022. These numbers are a continuation of the long-term slide in union membership in America. In 1983, the first year the government began collecting these numbers, the percentage of overall union membership in the U.S. was over 20 percent of the total American workforce.  

Professor’s Race Discrimination Claim Based on Disparate Treatment of Student Complaints Moves Forward

A former medical professor’s lawsuit survived a motion for summary judgement filed by her former university employer following allegations that non-minority professors were not terminated following student complaints. In allowing the case to proceed to discovery, the federal court judge concluded that the plaintiff “barely” raised enough facts to allow the case to proceed (Miller-Sethi v. City University of New York et al (S.D.N.Y. No. 21- cv- 08591, I/26/23)).

The medical school professor’s contract was not renewed following a complaint from a student that the professor criticized her following the student’s refusal to continue working at a site which she was not comfortable working in because of the racial makeup of the area. The university argued that the comparators had received complaints regarding course evaluation or teaching techniques, which were not comparable to plaintiff’s situation. The judge ordered further discovery on the issue.