Following a public comment period, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) has published a modified version of new regulations, previously issued on September 13, 2016, aimed at creating higher cybersecurity standards within the banking, insurance and financial services industries.  The regulations go into effect on March 1, 2017 with phased implementation thereafter, and will likely require significant capital expenditures and operational changes by colleges and universities covered by the regulations.  The public comment period for the proposed modified regulations will be open until January 27, 2017. Colleges and universities must already comply with a panoply of laws, regulations and standards relating to data security:  the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the United States Department of Education guidance applicable to student loan information, the Red Flags Rule, PCI standards for credit card information, and, for some institutions, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.  The DFS proposed cybersecurity regulations would impose operational requirements and expenditures that are far more burdensome than these existing obligations in many respects, including but not limited to standards for: penetration testing and vulnerability assessments, audit trails, cybersecurity personnel, due diligence, risk assessment, and contracting with third parties, use of multi-factor authentication and annual certification of compliance by the board of directors.  For information on the specific requirements of the proposed cybersecurity regulations, please review our Client Information Memoranda dated September 16, 2016 and January 5, 2017. The new cybersecurity regulations apply to “Covered Entities”, which are defined broadly as “any Person operating under or required to operate under a license, registration, charter, certificate, permit, accreditation or similar authorization under the banking law, the insurance law or the financial services law.”  Among the 3,800 entities regulated by DFS is a subset of institutions and organizations that are engaged in bona fide charitable, religious, missionary, educational or philanthropic activities and are permitted under N.Y. Insurance Law § 1110 to issue charitable gift annuities to donors.  Therefore, unless the new regulations are further modified, such entities (including many colleges and universities) will be required to comply. (To determine if your entity is supervised by DFS, you can perform a search here.) Certain covered entities are exempt from a subset of the new cybersecurity regulations.  Exempt entities include those with fewer than 10 employees, less than $5 million gross annual revenue for three years, or less than $10 million in year-end total assets.  Additional exemptions exist for covered entities that do not operate, maintain, utilize or control any Information Systems and do not control, own, access, generate, receive or possess Nonpublic Information as those terms are defined by the regulations.  Covered entities that qualify for exemptions must file a “Notice of Exemption” with DFS affirming the basis for the exemption.  Unfortunately, due to their size, few colleges and universities will qualify for exemption. It is not immediately clear that DFS intended to include entities regulated solely under Insurance Law § 1110 as covered entities alongside traditional insurance companies.  In fact, according to the Report on Cyber Security in the Insurance Sector, which was conducted as part of the regulation drafting process, DFS surveyed 21 health insurers, 12 property and casualty insurance providers, and 10 life insurance providers, but no colleges, universities, or charitable or religious organizations.  Statements made by the Superintendent of Department of Financial Services, Maria T. Vullo, and Governor Andrew Cuomo in connection with the announcement of the regulations make no mention of not-for-profit organizations or higher education institutions as targets of the regulations. Notwithstanding the apparent primary focus of the regulations, in connection with its reissuance of the regulations on December 28, DFS acknowledged that many of the comments it received concerned the broad definition of “Covered Entity”, but that it opted not to amend that definition at this time.  Institutions issued permits under N.Y. Insurance Law § 1110 to issue charitable gift annuities may wish to submit public comments about the impact of the regulations during the current public comment period, but should proceed on the assumption that the regulations will apply unless and until DFS provides definitive guidance to the contrary.

On November 28, 2016, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation enacting another round of amendments to the Nonprofit Revitalization Act of 2013.  The amendments should ease compliance with the NPRA’s related party transaction rules by incorporating express exceptions, allowing for committee approval, authorizing ratification of past transactions, and narrowing the universe of persons subject to the rules. Private colleges and universities in New York State would be well advised to update their governance documents to incorporate these changes so that their governance documents do not prevent them from taking advantage of these provisions.  In addition, New York institutions should review their governing documents for compliance with other changes made by the amendments, including changes relating to (1) the definition of interested directors (trustees); (2) the formation, composition and authority of Board committees; (3) the role of audit committees; and (4) certain procedural aspects of conflict of interest.

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing its regulations revising the white collar exemptions.  Therefore, the increase in the minimum salary level to $913.00 per week that was expected to go into effect on December 1 will not occur on that date. In granting the injunction, the Court held that Congress intended the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions to be based on an employee’s duties — not on an employee’s salary level.  Specifically, the Court stated:  “After reading the plain meanings together with the statute, it is clear Congress intended the EAP [executive, administrative, professional] exemption to apply to employees doing actual executive, administrative, and professional duties.  In other words, Congress defined the EAP exemption with regard to duties, which does not include a minimum salary level.”  Although the USDOL has imposed a minimum salary level requirement to qualify for the white collar exemptions since the 1940s, the Court nevertheless determined that the increase in the minimum salary level from $455.00 per week to $913.00 per week was so large that “it supplants the duties test.”  The Court stated:  “If Congress intended the salary requirement to supplant the duties test, then Congress, and not the Department, should make that change.” So, what does this mean for the future of these regulations?  Although this is only a preliminary injunction that prevents the implementation of the regulations until a final determination is made, this could very well be a permanent end to the regulations.  A final determination is unlikely to be issued before the inauguration of President Trump, and it seems less likely that the USDOL under the Trump administration will be inclined to continue to vigorously defend the regulations in this litigation.  A more likely outcome is that the USDOL may rescind and reissue the regulations with a less drastic salary increase, or perhaps even not reissue the regulations at all. This development leaves many employers wondering what to do about the employees who have already been told that they will be reclassified from exempt status to non-exempt status beginning next week and the employees who have been told that they will receive salary increases beginning next week in order to maintain their exempt status.  The employees who have been told that they will be reclassified from exempt to non-exempt status can certainly be told at this point that they will remain exempt employees (assuming, of course, that their duties continue to qualify them for one of the white collar exemptions).  In addition, from a legal standpoint, nothing would preclude an employer from rescinding the salary increases that were scheduled to go into effect next week for employees who were told that they would receive a salary increase to maintain their exempt status (unless the employer has entered into an employment contract that binds the employer to providing the salary increase).  Obviously, from a human resources standpoint, this will require clear and prompt communication regarding the reason why the salary increase is being rescinded. Employers in New York should also keep in mind that the New York State Department of Labor has proposed a gradual increase to the minimum salary levels to qualify for the executive and administrative exemptions.  If these proposed regulations are adopted, the first salary increase will occur on December 31, 2016.  Employers outside of New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties will be required to pay a minimum salary of $727.50 per week to executive and administrative employees.  Employers in New York City who employ 11 or more employees will be required to pay a minimum salary of $825.00 per week to executive and administrative employees.  Employers in New York City who employ 10 or fewer employees will be required to pay a minimum salary of $787.50 per week to executive and administrative employees.  Employers in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties will be required to pay a minimum salary of $750.00 per week to executive and administrative employees.  These amounts will increase each year.  There is still no minimum salary under New York law to qualify for the professional exemption even under the new proposed regulations.  We will provide an update regarding whether these proposed regulations become final regulations.

The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") recently notified a major university that it is being audited, and as part of that audit requested copies of the employment agreements of the president of the university, the provost of the university, and the head coaches of the University’s football team, men’s basketball team, and women’s basketball team. This audit is a reminder to higher education institutions of the importance of making sure that all of their employment agreements and appointment letters fully comply with all of the tax and benefit requirements that apply to such agreements and letters. A failure to comply with these requirements could result in serious adverse tax and benefit consequences for the higher education institution, and for the employees covered by such agreements and letters.

What Are Some of the More Important Tax and Benefit Issues That Should Be Reviewed in the Employment Agreements and Appointment Letters of Higher Education Institutions?

Among the more important tax and benefit issues that should be reviewed in the employment agreements and appointment letters of higher education institutions are the following:

• Compliance With the Deferred Compensation Requirements – The deferred compensation requirements in Sections 409A and 457(f) of the Internal Revenue Code ("Deferred Compensation Requirements") have a very broad scope, and affect numerous provisions in employment agreements and appointment letters that often are not considered to be deferred compensation. If an employment agreement or an appointment letter provides for any taxable payment to be made or any taxable benefit to be provided in a future calendar year, that taxable payment or benefit generally should be structured to be exempt from the Deferred Compensation Requirements when reasonably possible (if that is not reasonably possible, it should then be structured to comply with the Deferred Compensation Requirements). A failure to satisfy the Deferred Compensation Requirements could result in serious adverse tax consequences, including (1) possible taxation in the year an employment agreement or appointment letter is signed, including income that is scheduled to be paid or provided in a later calendar year, (2) a possible 20 percent tax on the applicable employee, (3) interest penalties in certain circumstances, and (4) corrected IRS Forms W-2 and Forms 990 in certain circumstances.
• Benefit Issues – If an employment agreement or an appointment letter provides any benefit that is in addition to, or exceeds, the benefits that generally are available to other eligible employees on campus, it is important to verify if (1) such benefit is allowed by the terms of the applicable benefit plan, and (2) whether offering such benefit will violate any nondiscrimination requirements under the Internal Revenue Code ("Code"). A violation of a plan’s terms or a Code nondiscrimination requirement could, in certain circumstances, result in coverage issues for the applicable employee, serious adverse tax consequences for the employee, and/or loss of a plan’s tax-favored status.
• Compliance With the "Reasonable Compensation" Requirements – The Code has excess benefit transaction provisions that require that no more than "reasonable compensation" be paid to certain persons who are in a position to exercise substantial influence over a covered tax-exempt organization. A failure to satisfy these requirements could result in excise taxes on the persons receiving "unreasonable" compensation, and on any officer, trustee or director who knowingly and willfully approved the "unreasonable" compensation. In egregious circumstances, the tax-exempt status of an organization could be revoked. Some states also have separate "reasonable compensation" requirements.

What Are Examples of Provisions In Employment Agreements and Appointment Letters That Are Subject To the Deferred Compensation Requirements?

Examples of provisions in employment agreements and appointment letters that potentially could be subject to the Deferred Compensation Requirements, and that generally should be structured to be exempt from the Deferred Compensation Requirements when reasonably possible (such structuring often will require additional language to be added to an employment agreement or appointment letter), include the following:

• Salary Provisions – a salary provision that provides for salary payments to be made in a future calendar year;
• Bonus or Incentive Compensation Provisions – a bonus or incentive compensation provision that could result in a bonus or an incentive compensation payment being paid in a future calendar year;
• Non-Exempt Benefits That Are Taxable – any non-exempt benefit that could result in a taxable benefit or payment being provided in a future calendar year, such as personal use of an automobile or personal use of a club membership (certain types of benefits are exempt from the Deferred Compensation Requirements, and nontaxable benefits are also exempt from the Deferred Compensation Requirements);
• Sabbatical Leaves – sabbatical leaves that result in taxable payments being made in a future calendar year;
• Certain Housing Benefits – any housing benefit that is taxable in a future calendar year (even though some housing can be provided on a tax-free basis if certain requirements are satisfied, the IRS has taken the position that some of the expenses that often are incurred with respect to such housing are personal expenses that are taxable);
• Expense Reimbursements That Are Taxable – any reimbursement of a business expense or other expense that is taxable and that could be paid in a future calendar year, such as a taxable reimbursement of spousal travel expenses (nontaxable expense reimbursements are exempt from the Deferred Compensation Requirements);
• Termination or Severance Payments – any termination or severance payments made in a future calendar year, such as payments owed after a termination without cause that are scheduled to be paid in a future calendar year (if a release agreement is required, the Deferred Compensation Requirements could also apply to the timing of payments made pursuant to that release agreement in certain circumstances);
• Other Provisions Providing Taxable Payments After Employment Ends – other provisions that provide taxable payments after employment ends and in a future calendar year (e.g., payments in a future calendar year for consulting services or for moving expenses); and
• Indemnification Provisions – indemnification provisions that provide for the possible reimbursement of certain expenses in a future calendar year.

Consideration should be given to adding a construction clause in each employment agreement (and in certain appointment letters when it would be helpful) that provides that the agreement or letter is intended to comply with any applicable Deferred Compensation Requirements, and should be construed in a manner that is consistent with the intent that the agreement or letter not be subject to the premature income recognition or adverse tax provisions of the Deferred Compensation Requirements. The IRS has indicated that it will give deference to such a construction clause in certain circumstances.

Each employment agreement and appointment letter should have language reserving the right of the university or college to withhold any required taxes with respect to any taxable payment or benefit described in the agreement or letter.

What Are Some of the More Important Benefit Issues That Should Be Addressed In Employment Agreements and Appointment Letters?

Among the more important issues that could arise when a benefit is being provided in in an employment agreement or an appointment letter is the extent to which the benefit is: (1) taxable; and (2) different than what is generally available to other employees on campus.

If a benefit is taxable and payable in a future calendar year, it generally should be structured to be exempt from the Deferred Compensation Requirements whenever reasonably possible. If it is not reasonably possible to structure the benefit to be exempt from the Deferred Compensation Requirements, it should be structured to comply with the Deferred Compensation Requirements.

If an employment agreement or appointment letter is providing a benefit that is different than what is generally available to other employees on campus, it is important to first check the terms of the applicable benefit plan, program, or policy to make sure the university or college has the authority to provide such a benefit (e.g., if an employment agreement or appointment letter is providing health or retirement benefits during a period when the applicable employee is not rendering any services, the terms of the applicable health or retirement plan should be reviewed to verify that benefits can be provided at a time when no services are being rendered). Such verification is especially important if the applicable benefit is being provided pursuant to a tax-favored retirement plan (a failure to follow the terms of a tax-favored retirement plan could jeopardize the tax-favored status of that plan) or an insured plan (e.g., a failure to comply with the terms of an insured health plan could result in an insurer refusing to provide coverage). It also is important to determine whether any different benefit that is being offered is subject to nondiscrimination requirements under the Code. Such nondiscrimination requirements generally preclude the applicable benefit being provided in a way that discriminates in favor of highly compensated employees, highly compensated individuals, or key employees (depending upon the applicable benefit). Examples of benefits that are subject to such nondiscrimination requirements include:

• tax-favored retirement plans (e.g., tax-sheltered annuity plans under Section 403(b) of the Code, and qualified retirement plans under Section 401(a) of the Code);
• self-insured health benefits (the Affordable Care Act imposed similar nondiscrimination requirements on insured health plans, but the IRS has issued a moratorium on those requirements until such time as it specifies otherwise);
• qualified tuition reduction benefits that provide free or discounted tuition benefits to employees, spouses of employees, eligible dependents of employees, and certain other persons if the requirements of the Code are satisfied;
• group-term life insurance benefits;
• pre-tax benefits under a cafeteria plan (including separate nondiscrimination requirements for dependent care assistance benefits and health flexible spending account benefits);
• educational assistance plans (under Section 127 of the Code);
• no-additional-cost service benefits and qualified discount benefits; and
• adoption assistance benefits.

What Are Some of the More Important Steps Covered Universities and Colleges Should Take To Comply With the "Reasonable Compensation" Requirements?

To the extent a university or college is subject to the "reasonable compensation" requirements under the Code, it will want to take the following steps, among others, to comply with those "reasonable compensation" requirements:

• identify which employees and other persons have the type of substantial influence necessary to be subject to the "reasonable compensation" requirements (such employees and persons are referred to in the statute as "Disqualified Persons");
• assemble appropriate comparability data regarding the total compensation and benefits being paid to similar persons at comparable organizations;
• arrange to have a properly authorized body of the university or college review the appropriate comparability data for each Disqualified Person, and, after confirming that no member of the authorized body has a conflict of interest, make a decision as to whether the total compensation and benefits being provided to each Disqualified Person are reasonable; and
• document, in a timely and proper manner, any decision made regarding the reasonableness of compensation paid to a Disqualified Person.

Any university or college subject to these "reasonable compensation" requirements generally should have written procedures in place that will help ensure that the required "reasonable compensation" analysis is done whenever there is an increase in compensation or benefits for a Disqualified Person. Certain state universities and colleges are exempt from these "reasonable compensation" requirements.

Some states have implemented reasonable compensation requirements, and to the extent those requirements are applicable they also will need to be taken into account.

Citing the ongoing nationwide dialogue on law enforcement-community relations, racial justice and officer and public safety, on September 8 the U.S. Department of Education (in coordination with the Justice Department) released a Dear Colleague  Letter providing guidance to colleges and universities with respect to its expectations for campus policing.   In the main, the guidance encourages institutions to adopt and implement “applicable” recommendations from the Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing .   As noted by the Department, the Task Force Report covers topics including  “changing the culture of policing, embracing community policing concepts, ensuring fair and impartial policing, focusing on officer wellness and safety, implementing new technologies, and building community capital.” The Department encourages institutions to use the Task Force Report as a “template for self-assessment and organizational change,” with adjustments appropriate to context (for example, suggesting that in the campus environment, community engagement efforts should include diverse members of an institution’s campus community such as students, faculty, staff, and administrators, as well as community advocacy groups with relevant expertise). The Department’s guidance also reiterates institutions’ security-oriented obligations under the Clery Act and applicable federal civil rights statutes.

New management agreement guidelines were issued by the IRS today in a new Revenue Procedure (Rev. Proc.) 2016-44.  Rev_Proc_2016-44 provides revised safe harbors under which a private management contract does not result in impermissible private business use of projects financed with tax-exempt bonds.  The former limits on fixed and variable compensation in management contracts involving tax-exempt bond financed facilities have been eliminated. Rev. Proc. 2016-44 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin Number 2016-36, dated September 6, 2016. These revised safe harbors give colleges and universities the ability to enter into management contracts with private entities to manage or operate tax-exempt bond financed projects with more flexibility for incentives in reasonable compensation arrangements and longer terms of up to 30 years (subject to an economic life limit). The revised safe harbors also remove the previous requirements for prescribed percentages of fixed compensation for management contracts for different time periods. The revised safe harbors continue a longstanding existing prohibition against sharing of net profits, and add certain new principles-based constraints (governmental control, governmental risk of loss, and no inconsistent tax positions by private service providers). The revised safe harbors are effective for any management contract that is entered into on or after August 22, 2016.

Three lawsuits filed in early August suggest that plaintiffs’ law firms, representing employees of colleges and universities, are looking at higher education retirement plans as potential targets for lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages. The New York Times reported[1] that class action lawsuits were commenced on August 9, 2016 against three prominent universities – New York University, Yale, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – alleging that the schools had allowed their employees to be charged excessive fees on their retirement savings.  The law firm bringing the lawsuits – Schlichter Bogard & Denton – has already brought and settled many similar lawsuits against companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Novant Health, for amounts in the tens of millions of dollars.  The Lockheed Martin settlement, for example, was for $62 million.  The new lawsuits suggest that Schlichter, and potentially other plaintiffs’ law firms, are now looking at college and university plans as potential targets for similar kinds of claims. The new lawsuits are putative class actions, which means that the law firm represents certain named employees who are participants in the universities’ retirement plans, and purports to represent all other similarly situated employee participants – plaintiff classes that may have thousands of members each. Once a handful of the college or university’s employees agree to be part of the lawsuit, it can be brought on behalf of all the employees in the retirement plan. The claims against NYU, MIT and Yale are similar to claims made in many of the previous retirement plan lawsuits brought by the Schlichter firm and others: that retirement plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to prudently select investment vehicles for the plans so as to maximize returns, often by  minimizing fees.[2] Under ERISA, the “fiduciaries” of a covered retirement plan – plan fiduciaries can include administrative and investment committees and, frequently, officers and other members of management of the college or university – are subject to strict fiduciary responsibilities and can be held personally liable for any losses caused by a breach of these duties.  In short, it means the college or university is obligated to administer the retirement plan funds of employees in a manner that results in the highest possible prudent growth. Beginning about ten years ago, a wave of lawsuits have been brought on behalf of retirement plan participants alleging that fiduciaries had breached their duties by selecting improper investment options, and in particular by allowing excessive fees to be paid from plan assets. If the investment fees paid by a retirement plan are deemed to be excessive, even by a seemingly small margin, the aggregate losses over an employee’s working career can be very large.  A frequently cited calculation stated in a U.S. Department of Labor publication more than 10 years ago – and repeated in the Times article – recites that if investment fees are one percentage point higher than a reasonable amount, the participant’s retirement account will be 28 percent lower after a 35 year career.  If that is true, then for large plans (like those sponsored by the three universities), the potential losses are enormous – the complaint against MIT alleges that the plan could have saved more than $8 million in fees in a single year by selecting investments prudently. (The complaint’s damage claim is of course not limited to a single year’s losses.) Significantly, these lawsuits also involve claims against major college and university retirement plan managers, including TIAA-CREF and Fidelity.  Accordingly, any college currently using these companies for its employee retirement plans could face some of the same claims. To reduce the risk of liability going forward, retirement plan fiduciaries should, among other things:

• exercise “procedural prudence” in analyzing, vetting, and selecting investment options and advisors for the retirement plan, with a view to the risk, return and cost characteristics of each investment and the plan portfolio as a whole,
• continually monitor the chosen investments and make changes if and when appropriate,
• discuss fees and fee options with retirement plan companies to secure the most favorable arrangements for employees,
• require that retirement plan managers disclose fees and charges so they may be communicated to employees;
• avoid any conflicts of interest in the selection and monitoring processes, and
• consult with third party advisors whenever “in-house” fiduciaries lack necessary expertise.

Colleges and universities may also want to confer with existing retirement plan managers regarding responses to questions which may arise at this time from employees about current retirement plans. Attorneys in Bond Schoeneck & King’s Employee Benefits Practice Group frequently counsel clients with respect to best practices for fulfilling fiduciary duties and avoiding ERISA liability. Often this takes the form of “fiduciary training” we provide to retirement plan committees and other plan fiduciaries.  In addition, the firm’s Litigation Group has substantial experience in defending ERISA lawsuits. [1] Tara Siegel Bernard, “M.I.T., N.Y.U. and Yale Are Sued Over Retirement Plan Fees”, NY Times (Aug. 9. 2016, accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/10/your-money/mit-nyu-yale-sued-4013b-retirement-plan-fees-tiaa-fidelity.html. [2] We discussed some of the numerous issues pertinent to these types of claims in previous Memoranda – , for example: ERISA Fiduciary Guidance - Fairness for Defined Contribution Fees, and ERISA Fiduciary Guidance - Making a "Watch List" Work.  

On July 1, 2016 the U.S. Department of Education issued a follow-up Dear Colleague Letter to the Dear Colleague Letter of July 29, 2015. This most recent letter reminds institutions of their legal obligation to protect student data under Title IV and sets forth the new standards and methods the DOE will use when evaluating data security compliance. An institution’s Title IV Program Participation Agreement (PPA) requires that they must protect all student financial aid data. The Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) Enrollment Agreement, the system used by educational institutions and third-party servicers to exchange data electronically with the U.S. Department of Education, contains similar requirements. In addition, the letter reminds institutions that the specific requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) governing data security at financial services organizations apply to post-secondary institutions. These include implementing a written information security program, designating an individual to coordinate information security, performing ongoing risk assessments, and properly vetting third-party service providers. It is also noted that compliance with the GLBA will be incorporated into the DOE’s annual student aid compliance audit requirements. Most significantly, the letter “strongly encourages institutions to review and understand the standards defined in NIST SP 800-171.”  These standards were developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to protect sensitive federal information that is used and stored in non-federal information systems and organizations. NIST SP 800-171 sets forth a significant expansion of the data security requirements and controls expected in the handling of student financial aid data and other types of federal data and information. In citing these standards, the DOE acknowledges “the investment and effort by institutions to meet and maintain the standards set forth in NIST SP 800-171” but “strongly encourages those institutions that fall short of NIST standards to assess their current gaps and immediately begin to design and implement plans to close those gaps using NIST standards as a model.” The message from the US DOE is clear – institutions of higher education that use student financial aid data, and other forms of federal data are expected to “immediately” begin to integrate the specific requirements of NIST SP-171.

The Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting (the “Handbook”), which provides important guidance for institutions as it relates to their compliance with the Clery Act’s safety and security requirements, was recently revised and a new version (the 2016 Edition) released by the United States Department of Education. This valuable resource had not been updated since 2011.  The 2016 Edition of the Handbook contains updated provisions with respect to, among other things, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

The 2016 Edition of the Handbook, which replaces all previous versions of the Handbook, can be accessed here.

The New York State Education Department has activated its electronic submission system for institutions to file certificates of compliance with Education Law Articles 129-A and 129-B, as well as the copies of rules and policies required to be filed this year pursuant to Article 129-B.  A link to the portal, as well as instructions for using it, can be found on the Department's website. When making the required Article 129-B filings, institutions are instructed to submit only the documentation specified in the portal, and not copies of MOUs, training session rosters or other materials required or necessitated by Article 129-B's provisions.  Rather, these documents should be retained by the institution as evidence of compliance and provided to the Department, upon request, in connection with compliance monitoring or auditing. All filings are due by July 1, 2016, (though institutions do not risk loss of State funding for failure to file until September 1).

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in its admissions policies and procedures by rendering a decision in the second case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was rejected for admission to UT Austin over eight years ago. In June 2013, the Supreme Court remanded Ms. Fisher’s case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit so it could reconsider the constitutionality of the university’s race-conscious admissions policies and procedures under the strict scrutiny standard articulated in prior affirmative action Supreme Court decisions.  In July 2014, the Fifth Circuit again held in favor of UT Austin, finding that its use of race in admissions was constitutional since the university had considered race-neutral alternatives in its admissions process and still could not achieve sufficient diversity.  Dissatisfied, Ms. Fisher appealed to the Supreme Court again, arguing that UT Austin’s use of race in its admissions process disadvantaged her and other non-minority applicants. In yesterday’s Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin decision, the Supreme Court found that UT Austin’s use of race in its admissions process meets the strict scrutiny standard since the university’s goal to provide its students with educational benefits that result from having a diverse student body advances a compelling interest.  Further, the Court found that UT Austin validly demonstrated that race-neutral alternatives (e.g., scholarships, outreach programs, etc.) were not sufficient to achieve a diverse student body, even when used in conjunction with Texas’ Ten Percent Plan which guarantees Texas students graduating in the top tenth of their class admission to a public college or university of their choice in the state. While this decision puts an end to Ms. Fisher’s case against UT Austin and appears to be a win for the use of affirmative action by colleges and universities in admissions, the Court’s decision did include a warning to UT Austin – and colleges and universities across the country -- that the need for race-conscious admissions processes may change over time. In the Court’s majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stressed that institutions must periodically reassess the constitutionality of their admissions processes and procedures.  Specifically, he stated that the university “must continue to . . . scrutinize the fairness of its admissions program; to assess whether changing demographics have undermined the need for a race-conscious policy; and to identify the effects, both positive and negative, of the affirmative-action measures it deems necessary.”  Given this charge, colleges and universities that use race as a factor in their admissions process should avoid complacency and periodically audit their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Court’s mandate.

In a new update posted to its website, the New York State Education Department has indicated that it is continuing work on its electronic system for the submission and recording of this year’s required certificates of compliance under Education Law Articles 129-A and 129-B, and the copies of written rules and polices required to be filed this year pursuant to Article 129-B. As before, the Department indicates that once the system is operational, information will be posted on its website on how to access the system and submit the required documentation. As institutions are aware, the statutory deadline for filing certifications, rules and policies is July 1 (though institutions do not risk loss of State funding for failure to file until September 1).  However, all documentation must be submitted through the yet-to-be-released electronic filing system, and the Department will not accept, or record as received, hard copy documents or documents submitted via email.  Consequently, institutions necessarily find themselves in a holding pattern until further notice.