HR and the Courts – July 2022

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.

Long Awaited Title IX Regulations Issued

On Thursday, June 23 the Biden administration’s Department of Education issued its long anticipated new Title IX proposed regulations. The proposed regulations consist of a 700-page document published in the Federal Register and open for public comment for 60 days. The significant highlights of the proposed regulation include the expanding of the definition of sex harassment to include as prospective claimants those who allege discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy and any situation that creates a “hostile environment.”

The proposed regulations throw out the Trump administration’s definition of sex harassment, which required the alleged sex harassment be “so severe and pervasive as to be objectively offensive,” and return to the pre-Trump era’s “severe and pervasive” standard, which is consider by most commentators to be a lower bar for future alleged sex harassment victims.

The proposed regulations also expand jurisdiction over alleged sex harassment to include off-campus and out of the country matters, including study abroad situations. Finally, the proposed regulations also eliminate the requirement that investigations include cross examination of victims and in-person hearings. We will follow developments as these regulations ultimately wind their way to finalization. Learn more.

Court of Appeals Rules That a Professor Has an Independent Right to Sue a University Under Title IX for an Alleged Gender-Biased Sex Harassment Allegation Which Led to His Denial of Tenure 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (covering New York, Vermont and Connecticut) ruled that a professor has an “implied right” of action for alleged gender bias under Title IX concerning the conduct of a Title IX investigation into charges of sex harassment brought by a student. The 2nd Circuit joined a number of other circuit courts in holding that Title IX grant professors have a right to sue under similar alleged circumstances (Vengalatorre v. Cornell University (2nd Cir. No. 15-14, 6/2/22)).

The professor alleged that the university’s procedures for investigating the allegations were “fundamentally flawed,” as the student’s allegations were time-barred under the university’s Title IX procedures. The university continued its investigation under the university’s “Romance Policy,” which took the investigation out of the hands of the Title IX coordinator and Title IX investigators. The investigation continued under the jurisdiction of a faculty committee, which the plaintiff alleged would not take action against allegedly false accusations because of “Twitter blow back.” The professor alleges that he was denied tenure as a result of a gender-biased investigation. The court ruled that the professor can proceed to trial over his allegations under Title IX.

Transgender Sheriff’s Deputy Wins Title VII Lawsuit Over Denial of Coverage for Sex-Change Surgery but Loses ADA Claim Based on Gender Dysphoria

A federal district judge in Georgia ruled in favor of  a sheriff’s deputy that she was improperly denied coverage for sex change and related genital surgery under the county’s health plan. The judge ruled that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in the Bostock case that gender identity discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judge ruled that the exclusion for “sex change surgery” contained in the county’s insurance policy is facially discriminatory to transgender plan participants (Lang v. Houston County (2022 BL 191359  M.D. Ga. No. 5:19-cv-00392, 6/2/22)).

The judge observed that it is undisputed that mastectomies are covered when they are medically necessary for cancer treatment but not when they are medically necessary for a sex change procedure. Similarly hormone replacement therapy is covered when medically necessary to treat menopause but not when medically necessary for a sex change. The judge concluded that this exclusion applies only to transgender participants and therefore violates Title VII.

However, the judge dismissed plaintiff’s claims under the ADA. The Judge ruled that the ADA exclusion of “gender identity disorders” from coverage under the statute applies to plaintiff’s medical condition of “gender dysphoria.”

University Subject to Gender-Based Discrimination Claim by Professor/Applicant for Position Never Filled

The Court of  Appeals for the 6th Circuit recently over turned a trial court’s dismissal of a Title IX gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the top-ranked applicant for a position that was not filled. The plaintiff, a male, alleged gender discrimination against him by way of a plot to leave the leave the position he was ranked number one for unfilled, and then create two new, separate positions that were filled by female applicants. The trial court dismissed the case as “unripe” as the original position was never filled. The appeals court reversed, holding that an employer can commit hiring bias a number of ways, including cancelling a job opening in favor of creating a new position in which to hire employees of a different gender (Charlton-Perkins v. University of Cincinnati (2022 BL 292328, 6th Cir. No. 21-13840, 6/3/22)).

The appeals court concluded that the alleged failure to hire the male plaintiff professor, despite the fact he was the number one applicant, is enough by itself to describe an adverse employment action and state an actionable discrimination claim for relief.

North Carolina State Plan Covering Teacher and State Employees Ordered to Pay Employees’ Transgender Care

The North Carolina Medical Plan for Teachers and State Employees’ exclusion of gender-confirmation coverage discriminates against transgender employees and their dependents on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause and Title VII, concludes the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Kadel V. Falwell (M.D.N.C., No. 19-cv-272, 6/10/22)). The court observed that the plan distinguishes between medically necessary drugs that conform to the patients biological sex and medically necessary drugs that do not. A similar case is pending with the Arizona State Plan, which we recently reported on.