Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Sweeping Changes Proposed for Federal Title IX Legislation

Client Alert
June 24, 2022

June 23, 2022, marked the 50th anniversary of Title IX — the federal civil rights legislation enacted to protect students from sex-based discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The anniversary was further marked by an announcement from the Biden administration of its intent to overhaul the landmark law, in part, by reinstating certain provisions removed, or otherwise modified, by the former administration.

In conjunction with the Department of Education, President Biden announced the proposed amendments to Title IX would have the impact of advancing “educational equity and opportunity”[1] for students across the country including, without limitation, those in the LGBTQIA+ community.  Specifically, the revised regulations are anticipated to clarify Title IX’s text to extend protections to students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics and, moreover, extend protection to both students and employees who are pregnant and/or have pregnancy-related condition(s).

The proposed amendments would also require schools to respond promptly to all complaints of sex discrimination with a fair and reliable process that includes trained, unbiased Title IX coordinators, investigators, and decisionmakers to evaluate the evidence. Notably, the proposals would effectively remove the requirement that schools wait for a formal complaint prior to acting — thereby allowing schools to investigate and sanction sexual misconduct complaints more promptly. The proposals also allow informal resolution of an incident without the submission of a formal complaint (a formal complaint is a prerequisite under the current regulations).

Moreover, following investigation, decisionmakers may soon be subject to a revised, heightened threshold for standard of proof based on the evidence — the clear and convincing evidence standard, meaning that the evidence presented must be “highly” and substantially more probable to be true rather than untrue — depending on what standard the school uses in other comparable proceedings.

In addition to the above, the proposed regulations are generally intended to strengthen protections from retaliation for those who exercise Title IX rights, require schools to engage in and/or offer supportive measures to parties involved in Title IX actions, and improve the adaptability of the Title IX framework to be applied fully and fairly in all educational environments.

The proposed regulations also revert the definition of sexual harassment back to “unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a person’s ability to participate in a school’s education program or activity. This would impose significant changes to the current rule, which only prohibits unwelcome sex-based misconduct if it is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.”

Practically speaking, the proposed regulations no longer require live hearings for Title IX investigations. This is a significant change from the August 2020 regulations, which directed higher education institutions to conduct live hearings with cross-examination following the investigation. Under the August 2020 regulations, a decisionmaker was prohibited from considering any statements of parties or witnesses that were not subject to cross-examination, and therefore not tested for credibility. Ultimately, the proposed regulations, by way of eliminating the live hearing requirement, could allow decisionmakers to consider more comprehensive evidence.

To the extent a live hearing is held, the proposed regulations also require higher education institutions to allow students who participate in the live hearing to do so remotely, if they so choose.

The proposed amendments will undergo a period of public comment for the next 60 days. The Education Department will then address each point in writing before the regulations can be finalized.

[1] See U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, “The U.S. Department of Education Releases Proposed Changes to Title IX Regulations, Invites Public Comment,” published June 23, 2022.

For additional information about the revised regulations, or how they may impact your institution, please reach out to one of Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s trained Title IX investigators and advisors, Monica Andress at mbandress@bmdllc.com, Krista Warren at kdwarren@bmdllc.com, Bryan Meek at bmeek@bmdllc.com, or Matt Duncan at mrduncan@bmdllc.com.

Monica Andresskrista warrenCivil RightsTitle IXLegislationBrennan Manna Diamond
Client Alert

The Masks Are Back: New OSHA Regulations for Healthcare Employers

June 11, 2021Employment Law After Hours is back with a News Break Episode. Yesterday, OSHA published new rules for healthcare facilities, including hospitals, home health employers, nursing homes, ambulance companies, and assisted living facilities. These new rules are very cumbersome, requiring mask wearing for all employees, even those that are vaccinated. The only exception is for fully vaccinated employees (2 weeks post final dose) who are in a "well-defined" area where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 will be present.Client Alert

New OSHA Guidance for Workplaces Not Covered by the Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard

June 11, 2021On June 10, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for occupational exposure to COVID-19, but it applies only to healthcare and healthcare support service workers. For a detailed summary of the ETS applicable to the healthcare industry, please visit https://youtu.be/vPyXmKwOzsk. All employers not subject to the ETS should review OSHA’s contemporaneously released, updated Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace. The new Guidance essentially leaves intact OSHA’s earlier guidance, but only for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers (“at-risk” meaning vaccinated or unvaccinated workers with immunocompromising conditions). For fully vaccinated workers, OSHA defers to CDC Guidance for Fully Vaccinated People, which advises that most fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, or local laws or individual business policies.Client Alert

Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

June 9, 2021As employers encourage or require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, they should be aware of OSHA recording obligations and potential workers’ compensation liability. Though OSHA has yet to revise its COVID-19 guidance in response to the latest CDC recommendations, OSHA has revised its position regarding the recording of injury or illness resulting from the vaccine. Until now, OSHA required an employer to record an adverse reaction when the vaccine was required for employees and the injury or illness otherwise met the recording criteria (work-related, a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria). OSHA has reversed course and announced that it will not require recording adverse reactions until at least May 2022, irrespective of whether the employer requires the vaccine as a condition of employment. In its revised COVID-19 FAQs, OSHA states:Client Alert

The New Rule 1.510 - Radical Change for Summary Judgement Procedure in Florida

June 8, 2021In civil litigation, where both sides participate actively, trial is usually required at the end of a long, expensive case to determine a winner and a loser. In federal and most state courts, however, there are a few procedural shortcuts by which parties can seek to prevail in advance of trial, saving time, money and annoyance. The most common of these is the “motion for summary judgment”: a request to the court by one side for judgment before trial, generally on the basis that the evidence available reflects that a win for that party is legally inevitable and thus required. Effective May 1, 2021, summary judgment procedure in Florida has radically changed.Client Alert

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

June 8, 2021In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.
Older posts
Newer posts