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.
States Begin Adding Menopause as a Protected Class Under Antidiscrimination Statutes and Requiring Disability Accommodation When Requested
The Virginia legislature passed a bill adding menopause and perimenopause to protection under the state’s antidiscrimination law. The new law would also require employers to provide disability accommodation under the state’s disability discrimination statute when an accommodation is requested. If the bill is signed by the governor, Virginia would become the second state adding menopause and perimenopause to disability protection under state statute.
Rhode Island became the first state to adopt such a measure last year. A similar bill was also passed by the California legislature last year but was vetoed by the governor, calling for a narrower proposal.
Separately, attorneys in many states have sued on behalf of plaintiffs with menopause and perimenopause under existing state statutes claiming sex, age, and/or disability discrimination. Those suits are subject to individual state court interpretation of the applicable state statute. Efforts to add menopause to protection under federal antidiscrimination protection have stalled in Congress.
Texas Teacher May Sue on First Amendment Freedom of Religion Grounds for Banning Daily Prayer and Bible Study Before School Begins
A teacher had regularly engaged in prayer and Bible study with other teachers before school began in her Houston, Texas location. The school banned her prayer and Bible study because it was in sight of students. A federal appeals court affirmed her right to sue and allowed her lawsuit to proceed on First Amendment freedom of religion grounds (Barber v. Rounds (5th Cir. No. 25-20125, 3/9/26)).
The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that a public school may ban an employee’s religious expression merely because a student could view it.
Saturday Sabbath Accommodation Request Case Allowed To Proceed on Disparate Impact Grounds
A Seventh-day Adventist sued her employer and union for rejecting a proposed accommodation to trade Saturday work assignments with other workers so she would have her Sabbath off. A federal district court judge ruled that she should be given the chance to file an amended complaint to specify disparate treatment allegations, which were not included in her initial complaint. The judge dismissed the complaint on lack of specificity grounds but gave the plaintiff 30 days in which to file an amended complaint with specificity (De Souza v. New York 2026 BL 95478, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-01222, 3/20/26)).
In dismissing the complaint, the court noted that the plaintiff did not allege any grant of similar shift-change requests for non-religious reasons that would provide grounds for disparate impact.
Florida Attorney General Asks NFL To Stop Enforcing the Rooney Rule Mandating DEI Requirements for Recruiting General Manager and Coaching Positions
Florida’s attorney general has sent a letter to the NFL and the three Florida-based professional football teams warning that they should stop enforcing the Rooney Rule, which requires all NFL teams to interview at least two external minority or female candidates for any open general manager or coaching position. Copies of the letter were sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission chair and to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Florida attorney general claims that the Rooney Rule violates applicable civil rights laws because it discriminates against non-minority candidates. The Florida attorney general is asking the NFL to confirm that it will no longer use the Rooney Rule or any variation of such rule in its hiring process in Florida. It is likely, although not confirmed at the time of publication of this article, that the NFL may challenge the legality of this action.
Ivy League Members Prevail at Court of Appeals in Dismissing an Antitrust Challenge to Their Policy of Not Providing Athletic Scholarships
The eight Ivy League institutions (Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University) prevailed in the dismissal of the lawsuit claiming that the Ivy League schools’ ban on athletic scholarships violated the antitrust laws and disadvantaged student-athletes who had to pay more for their education. In 2024, a federal district court judge dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the student-athletes failed to identify a relevant market for purposes of proceeding with an antitrust lawsuit. In an unpublished decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, dismissing the case (Choh et al v. Brown University et al (2nd Cir., No. 24-2826, unpublished 4/2/26)).
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.