The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges for college administrators as they evaluate whether to continue Title IX investigations through telephone and video conferences or postpone interviews and hearings until “stay at home” orders are withdrawn by state and local governments.
If Title IX investigations are postponed, victims of alleged sexual misconduct on campuses may sustain prolonged trauma. On the other hand, students accused of wrongdoing may be at a disadvantage if cases proceed through telephone or videoconferences. The mounting uncertainty created by the coronavirus pandemic poses unique scenarios for institutions committed to prompt and equitable resolution of complaints.
As a result of the COVID-19 crisis, many universities and colleges across the country suspended in-person classes and required students to vacate school housing. Students have since filed a wave of federal class action lawsuits against these institutions claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment for alleged failure to refund the students for tuition, housing and various activities fees. We provide a quick update and overview below.
In Squeri v. Mount Ida College, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Massachusetts District Court dismissing students’ claims against Mount Ida College for closing its doors.1 In doing so, the First Circuit explained that the officers and trustees of a higher education institution owe a fiduciary duty to the institution itself, but not to its students. This is an important clarification as other higher education institutions face the difficult decision, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, of whether or not to close.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, colleges and universities have shifted to online education to encourage social distancing and prevent the spread of the virus. A herculean task for many institutions, this presents a unique opportunity for institutions to evaluate the accessibility of their websites, learning management systems and online communication platforms for compliance with applicable law.
On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which enacted the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. These Acts make new categories of leave available to eligible employees of covered public employers as well as private employers with fewer than 500 employees. This 500-employee threshold has left many higher education institutions wondering whether their student workers may be counted as employees and whether their students are entitled to leave.
The work world during the COVID-19 pandemic has been changing at an astounding pace. As change has occurred, your organization has been making out-of-the ordinary decisions. This communication is a reminder that it is important to appropriately document the decisions you have made and the rationale for them. When this crisis is over and work returns to a new normal, it may be difficult to remember the daily decisions made during these stressful times.
While many colleges and universities shift to online instruction to prevent the community spread of COVID-19, administrators must consider how their institutions will handle investigations during this time. Institutions face the challenge of ensuring substantial compliance with governing law and internal policy in a new environment, where key stakeholders practice social distancing, may reside in different times zones, and may have different levels of access to technology.
Spring break invites faculty travel to conferences abroad, student study trips abroad and student dispersal to their home locations. What should a higher education institution do to prepare for this period of increased travel?
On January 16, 2020, in a move that highlights two First Amendment issues, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed revisions to current regulations to (1) encourage institutions of higher education to foster environments that promote open and diverse debate and (2) avoid discrimination against faith-based entities in the awarding and administration of Department research and education grants.
On December 19, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) held that employers can require employees to keep internal investigations confidential during the pendency of the investigations. This decision, Apogee Retail d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, overturns a 2015 decision banning employer rules requiring confidentiality in internal investigations, and has significant repercussions for higher education institutions that engage in such investigations.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) latest compliance activity involves site visits of those employers who employ F-1 nonimmigrant students under STEM Optional Practical Training (“STEM OPT”) work authorization. With STEM OPT, F-1 students who have earned STEM (e.g., science, technology, engineering and mathematics) degrees from U.S. institutions of higher education can apply for and obtain an additional 24 months of OPT work authorization in addition to the 1 year of post-graduation OPT granted to all eligible F-1 students.
In what is likely only the first step in a trek to the U.S. Supreme Court, on September 30, 2019, Harvard College defeated a challenge to its admissions policy brought in the federal District Court in Massachusetts on behalf of Asian-American applicants. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Civil Action No. 14-cv-14176-ADB, U.S. District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs found that Harvard’s admissions policies did not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or the strict scrutiny standard of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We will summarize the lengthy court decision in this comparatively short piece. The decision itself outlines extensive factual findings based on written submissions and the testimony from eighteen current and former Harvard employees, four expert witnesses, and eight current or former Harvard college students.
