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.
EEOC Alleges New York Times Engaged in Discriminatory Hiring and Promotion Practices Targeting White Male Employee
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) chair, Trump administration appointee Andrea Lucas, announced that the EEOC has filed a lawsuit alleging that The New York Times has unlawfully discriminated against White male employees in its hiring and promotion practices. The chair emphasized that this is the first such action on behalf of White male employees brought by the EEOC in 10 years. The lawsuit alleges that a New York Times editor was denied a promotion because of his race and gender (EEOC v. The New York Times (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-03704, case filed 5/4/26)).
The EEOC chair announced that the focus of the agency is “to go back to neutral” and not focus on one particular group. However, the chair emphasized that the priority could shift to groups less focused on in the past. In related action, in February the EEOC sued a Coca-Cola distributor alleging bias for holding a female employee retreat. The EEOC is also investigating diversity initiatives by Nike and Northwestern Mutual. The New York Times publicly denied the allegations and claims the lawsuit was politically motivated by the Trump administration.
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump Administration’s Argument That First Amendment Does Not Apply to Research Grants
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s arguments that the First Amendment does not apply to individual research grants. The appeals court ordered a pause in the administration’s attempt to suspend research grant payments to the University of California because it objects to the university’s positions on DEI (Thakur v. Trump (9th Cir. No. 25-4249, 5/26/26)).
The appeals court concluded that the Trump administration’s executive orders are an attempt to preclude DEI initiatives. As such, the appeals court concluded that the suspension in funding is likely a violation of the First Amendment because the government is trying to suppress viewpoints the government disagrees with.
Supreme Court to Decide Split in Circuit Court Decisions Whether Title IX Creates a Private Right of Action for Employees to Sue for Workplace Discrimination
The Supreme Court has granted review to an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case decision on whether Title IX creates a private right of action for employees to sue for workplace discrimination in addition to the remedies given employees under Title VII (Crowther v. University Board of Regents of the University of Georgia (US no. 25-183 petition granted 5/18/26)). Eight circuit courts (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th) permit employees to use Title IX in addition to Title VII to pursue workplace discrimination issues. Two circuit courts (the 5th and 11th) permit only students to pursue Title IX remedies.
A decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of employees in addition to students to use Title IX in addition to Title VII will allow employees to directly sue for workplace discrimination in federal court, bypassing the requirement that a charge be filed with the EEOC or applicable state agency as required by Title VII.
NCAA Receives Court Approval for a $303 Million Settlement of “Volunteer” Coaches Class Action
The NCAA received court approval of its proposed $303 million settlement of the pending volunteer coaches class action antitrust lawsuit (Ray v. NCAA (E.D. Ca. No.1:23-cv-00425, 5/12/26)). The coaches alleged that the NCAA Division I rule that limited the number of paid athletic coaches violated antitrust laws and forced them to arbitrarily forfeit wages and benefits in order to continue their coaching career and participate as unpaid “volunteer” coaches.
The NCAA abandoned the rule limiting the number of Division I coaches in 2023 shortly after the lawsuit was filed. Nonetheless, the class of coaches suing claimed unlawful denial of wages and benefits in the past. The settlement applies to all Division I coaches other than baseball coaches who filed a separate lawsuit. The settlement includes “volunteer” coaches who worked without pay in NCAA Division I, other than baseball coaches, from March 17, 2019, through June 30, 2023, and will receive an average settlement of around $27,000.
SCORE Act Targets NIL Payments, Limited Antitrust Immunity for NCAA and Employee Status of Student-Athletes
The SCORE Act (HR 4312) is being considered by the House of Representatives. The proposed legislation would standardize acceptable name, image and likeness (NIL) payments for student-athletes and require institutions to offer 16 varsity sports in compliance with Title IX. It would also limit student-athlete eligibility to five years, codifying part of the executive order of earlier this year. The legislation would require that student-athletes receive health care, mental health and academic support. The legislation would not limit existing Title IX requirements.
The SCORE Act seeks to limit coaching staff payments to revenue received from college athletics. The legislation would also grant the NCAA limited antitrust immunity and codify that student-athletes are neither employees of their institutions nor of their athletic conference. HR 4312 is being pushed by Republican representatives but there are alternative Democratic proposals that may be considered.
EEOC Submits Proposal to White House to End Employer EEO-1 Filings
The EEOC’s submission would rescind the annual requirement that large employers file annual EEO-1 reports detailing workforce demographics on the basis of race, sex and national origin. The proposal, which is slated for publication after review, would leave the federal government with much less information on the employment demographics of large private employers than is presently available.
The annual EEO-1 filing requires companies with more than 100 employees to file annual reports on this data, which have been used in the past as part of the commission’s enforcement of EEO laws. The EEOC has not yet launched its portal for EEO-1 filing for 2026. Last year, the EEOC launched its portal during May 2025. It is not yet clear whether this proposal will alter the required filing for 2026.
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.