HR and the Courts — May 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.

Court of Appeals Denies a Teacher’s Religious Accommodation Request to Be Excused From Student Pronoun Rule 

A divided 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana) denied a Christian teacher’s request for a religious accommodation to be excused from the school district’s student pronoun rule, which required teachers to address students by the name and pronoun of their choice. Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp. (7th Cir. No. 21-2475, 4/7/23). The Justice Department filed an amicus brief in support of the school district’s denial of the accommodation. The teacher requested an accommodation from the student pronoun rule, claiming that it violated his religious beliefs. The teacher requested that he be allowed as a religious accommodation to address all students in his classroom by last names only.

The two-judge majority concluded, over the dissent of one judge, that the accommodation request constituted an undue hardship for the school district. The court ruled that granting the accommodation would disrupt the learning environment and disturb both students and faculty.

The teacher has asked the full 7th Circuit to rehear and rule on the 2-to-1, three-judge decision. The 7th Circuit decided on April 27, 2023, to await full circuit court review until after the Supreme Court rules on a similar case regarding the scope of the employer-hardship provisions on deciding a request for a religion-based accommodation. The case pending before the Supreme Court is Groff v. DeJoy, argued before the Supreme Court on April 19, 2023.

Survey Concludes That Workers in Office Spend 25% More Time on Mentoring and Other Job-Development Activities, Compared to When They Work Remotely

In-office workers spend 25% more time on mentoring and career-development activities than when the same workers work remotely from home. In its 4/10/23 Daily Labor Report, Bloomberg published a poll completed by WFH Research, which compiled results from a survey of 2400 adult workers who were able to work from home and the office. The survey compared the workers’ in-office mentoring, formal training, and career development time to the time they spent on those activities when they worked remotely from home.

In the same Daily Labor Report, Bloomberg referenced a Commentator study that found that workers who have more face-to-face interaction with managers are promoted at a higher rate. The Commentator concluded that, “Employees’ social interactions with their mangers can be beneficial to their careers.”

Complaints Filed Under Federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 Are Subject to the Four-Year Federal Statute of Limitations, Not State-Based Statute of Limitations 

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina) recently ruled that Section 1981 complaints of discrimination filed under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as amended are subject to the applicable federal four-year statute of limitations. The appeals court rejected the defendant’s assertion that the complaint was subject to the shorter three-year North Carolina statute of limitations on wrongful termination claims, even though the complaint was brought in North Carolina. The court concluded that the complaint was brought solely under the federal statute so the federal statute of limitations applied. The case was Chambers v. North Carolina Department of Justice et, al (4th Cir. No. 22-01629, 4/17/23).

This case will likely have implications for Section 1981 complaints of discrimination filed against state-based public institutions of higher Education.

NLRB Imposes Expanded Remedies Against Employers Found to Have Egregiously or Repeatedly Violated Their Duty to Bargain in Union Negotiations

In a case involving a meat processor found to have repeatedly violated its duty to bargain in good faith with its union, the NLRB has issued a ruling that it would impose at least the following enhanced remedies against the offending employer and future similar employers. The enhanced remedies include reimbursement of the union’s bargaining expenses and lost pay to employees who sat in on bargaining sessions in which the employer bargained in bad faith. The case is Noah’s Ark Processors (N.L.R.B. Case # 14-CA-255658, 4/20/23).

In addition, the order requires a reading of unfair labor practice notice and explanation of employee rights by the company’s CEO or by an NLRB staffer in the presence of the company’s CEO, a mailing of the notice to employees homes, the signing of the notice by a company official, publishing of the notice at local news outlets that have broad circulation and local appeal, and authorization of NLRB staffers to visit the employer facility to assess compliance and posting requirements. These remedies will have application to private colleges and universities, which are subject to NLRB jurisdiction.

Federal Court Dismisses Claim of Religious Discrimination Following Termination of University Employee for Violation of COVID Safety Policies

A federal district court for New Jersey dismissed an employee’s claim of religious discrimination, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, following the university’s termination of the employee for refusing to follow the university’s mandatory COVID safety policies. The federal district court judge dismissed the claim that the employee was unlawfully terminated for failing to follow the university’s mandatory COVID safety policies, because the employee failed to identify a sincere religious belief that prevented the employee from complying with the safety policies. The case was McKinley v. Princeton University (3:22-cv-05069, Fed D Ct N.J. 4/28/23). The safety policies included wearing a mask, asymptomatic contact testing, and collecting saliva samples from asymptomatic employees.

The court in its eight-page decision dismissing the case granted the plaintiff leave to refile to correct the failure to identify a sincerely held religious belief.

Split Jury Verdict Results in $1.4 Million in Damages Awarded to a Professor Claiming Retaliation in the Denial to Re-Review Her Tenure Denial 

While a federal court jury rejected five of plaintiff’s claims of sex discrimination and parental status in the university’s denial of her tenure, it did award the professor a verdict on her claim that the denial of re-review of her tenure denial was in retaliation of her past charges of discrimination. The federal court judge affirmed the jury verdict, which resulted in awarding the plaintiff $1.4 million in damages. The case was Veikos v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-04408, judgement entered 5/2/23).

The federal judge rejected the university’s claim that the professor failed to properly mitigate her back-pay and front pay damages.