One month has passed since the NCAA Board of Directors adopted emergency legislation permitting student-athletes to monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) without violating the long-standing amateurism requirements of NCAA Bylaw 12. Specifically, the NCAA: (1) acknowledged that a state law/executive order regarding NIL supersedes NCAA rules; and (2) provided blanket NIL coverage to student-athletes located in states that do not have a state law/executive order in place. This major change in NCAA legislation is charting new pathways for how student-athletes must be monitored by their institutions to avoid ineligibility. The creation of an internal institutional policy is one way to help organize and manage this new process.
On June 21, 2021, in an opinion providing a very interesting historical overview of collegiate athletics going back to the 19th century and the founding of what is now the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in the NCAA v. Alston case. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s injunction of NCAA rules that restrict education-related benefits to Division I basketball and bowl subdivision football student-athletes.
Today’s corporate workplaces include workers in nontraditional working arrangements. Companies in many industries are increasingly establishing a core group of employees in many of their business units and supplementing them with other workers under more flexible work arrangements. Higher education has not followed this business trend, but the financial pressures on our industry have invited more careful consideration of this possibility. This information memo reviews the legal issues that arise when two schools share one or more employees.
On March 19, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) issued new guidance to institutions of higher education (IHEs) regarding the use of funds received pursuant to the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) grant programs. The Department’s stated goal is to allow greater flexibility in the use of these funds to permit IHEs to better meet students’ needs. The major points are: (1) allowing IHEs to charge pre-award costs back to March 13, 2020; (2) additional guidance on the use of funds for and calculation of lost revenue; and (3) including students who are qualified aliens to receive student aid funding. The guidance documents respond to many of the unanswered questions raised by higher education groups including ACE and NASFAA.
Yesterday, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Supporting the Reopening and Continuing Operation of Schools and Early Childhood Education Providers. Among other things, the executive order instructs the U.S. Department of Education to develop and provide “evidence-based guidance to institutions of higher education on safely re-opening for in person learning,” as well as related advice to institutions on matters including distance and other means of delivering curricular content, and the promotion of mental health and social-emotional well-being. In developing its guidance, the Department is directed to consult with institutional officials, students, educators, unions and families.
In March 2020, the CARES Act created the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) to provide funds to higher education institutions and their students for support related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act provided roughly $14 billion to HEERF.
On Dec. 22, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted a petition for preliminary injunctive relief barring the enforcement of Executive Order 13950, Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping, (EO or Order) against federal contractors and grantees. The lawsuit, Santa Cruz Lesbian & Gay Community Center, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, Case no. 5:20-cv-07741 (N.D. Ca. Dec. 22, 2020), seeks to permanently enjoin enforcement of the entire Order as unconstitutional on two grounds:
The Order violates the first amendment by unlawfully chilling Plaintiffs’ exercise of constitutionally protected speech based on the content and viewpoint of the speech and
The Order is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide adequate notice of the conduct it purports to prohibit.
On Dec. 14, 2020, the IRS added guidance to its FAQs on the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund and Emergency Financial Aid Grants under the CARES Act, clarifying that higher education institutions are not required to report these emergency financial aid grants to students on Form 1098-T.
On May 6, 2020, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) issued new Title IX regulations which imposed significant changes in the way in which colleges and universities must investigate and adjudicate sexual assault cases. The revised Title IX regulations have an effective date of August 14, 2020. On August 5, 2020, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that the new regulations do not apply to institutional responses to sexual assaults that allegedly occurred prior to August 14 relying on the preamble to the regulations. Despite OCR’s seemingly clear position on retroactivity, a recent federal court case out of the Northern District of New York raises new questions as to whether and when the new Title IX rules must be applied retroactively to cases preceding their effective date.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidance earlier this year on dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. That earlier guidance did not recommend testing of students or employees. Many colleges and universities followed that guidance, and when some of them reopened this fall, they saw substantial outbreaks of the disease. The CDC has since then changed its guidance.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued guidance for institutions whose students are planning international travel or participation in study abroad programs.
The Guidance suggests that colleges and universities “consider postponing or canceling student international travel programs” because of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic in a number of international destinations. The Guidance suggests that “students may face unpredictable circumstances, such as travel restrictions, challenges returning home, and challenges accessing health care while abroad.”
The new Title IX rule, which became effective August 14, 2020, has garnered much attention in the higher education community over the summer. Many schools have scrambled to put new policies in place and to adequately resource and train staff for new responsibilities. For New York institutions, it is important to remember that schools also have requirements under the New York’s Enough is Enough law.
Importantly, Enough is Enough (New York Education Law Article 129-B) requires colleges and universities to submit annually aggregate data on reported incidents of sexual violence and their adjudication and handling.
In 2017, the New York State Board of Regents adopted regulations for reporting this information. A link to those regulations is provided below. Reports were due last year for calendar year 2018 so institutions should have familiarity with compiling and filing this Aggregate Data Report.
The October 1, 2020 deadline for calendar year 2019 reports is fast approaching. Any institution of higher education who has not yet submitted its 2019 Aggregate Data Report should attend to finalizing it and submitting the Report by the October 1 deadline. The Report should be submitted electronically.
If you have any questions about the information presented here, please contact any attorney in Bond’s Higher Education practice, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
