Category: Universities

EV Buses: Arriving Now and Here to Stay

In the words of Miss Frizzle, “Okay bus—do your stuff!”1 A favorable regulatory environment, direct subsidy, private investment, and customer demand are driving an acceleration in electric vehicle (EV) bus adoption and the lane of busiest traffic is filling with school buses. The United States has over 480,000 school buses, but currently, less than one percent are EVs. Industry watchers expect that EV buses will eventually become the leading mode for student transportation. School districts and municipalities are embracing EV buses because they are perceived as cleaner, requiring less maintenance, and predicted to operate more reliably than current fossil fuel consuming alternatives. EV bus technology has improved in recent years, with today’s models performing better in cold weather than their predecessors, with increased ranges on a single charge, and requiring very little special training for drivers.2 Moreover, EV buses can serve as components in micro-grid developments (more on that in a future post).

The Investment Incline

Even if the expected operational advantages of EV buses deliver, the upfront cost to purchase vehicles or to retrofit existing fleets remains an obstacle to expansion.  New EV buses price out significantly more than traditional diesel buses and also require accompanying new infrastructure, such as charging stations.  Retrofitting drive systems in existing buses comparatively reduces some of that cost, but also requires significant investment.3

To detour around these financial obstacles, federal, state, and local governments have made funding available to encourage the transition to EV buses.4 In addition to such policy-based subsidies, private investment from both financial and strategic quarters has increased.  Market participants who take advantage of such funding earlier than their competitors have a forward seat to position themselves as leaders.

You kids pipe down back there, I’ve got my eyes on a pile of cash up ahead!

Government funding incentives for electrification are available for new EV buses and for repowering existing vehicles.5 Notably, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $5 billion over five years to replace existing diesel buses with EV buses. Additionally, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act provided $18.7 million in rebates for fiscal year 2021 through an ongoing program.

In 2021, New York City announced its commitment to transition school buses to electric by 2035.  Toward that goal, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program provides vouchers to eligible fleets towards electric conversions and covers up to 80% of those associated costs.6  California’s School Bus Replacement Program had already set aside over $94 million, available to districts, counties, and joint power authorities, to support replacing diesel buses with EVs, and the state’s proposed budget for 2022-23 includes a $1.5 billion grant program to support purchase of EV buses and charging stations.

While substantial growth in EV bus sales will continue in the years ahead, it will be important to keep an eye out for renewal, increase or sunset of these significant subsidies.

Market Players and Market Trends, OEMs, and Retrofitters

The U.S is a leader in EV school bus production:  two of the largest manufacturers, Blue Bird and Thomas Built (part of Daimler Truck North America), are located domestically, and Lion Electric (based in Canada) expects to begin delivering vehicles from a large facility in northern Illinois during the second half of 2022.  GM has teamed up with Lighting eMotors on a medium duty truck platform project that includes models prominent in many fleets, and Ford’s Super Duty lines of vehicles (which provide the platform for numerous vans and shuttle vehicles) pop up in its promotion of a broader electric future. Navistar’s IC Bus now features an electric version of its flagship CE series.

Additionally, companies are looking to a turn-key approach to deliver complete energy ecosystems, encompassing vehicles, charging infrastructure, financing, operations, maintenance, and energy optimization. In 2021, Highland Electric Transportation raised $253 million from Vision Ridge Partners, Fontinalis Partners (co-founded by Bill Ford) and existing investors to help accelerate its growth, premised on a turn-key fleet approach.7

Retrofitting is also on the move.  SEA Electric (SEA), a provider of electric commercial vehicles, recently partnered with Midwest Transit Equipment (MTE) to convert 10,000 existing school buses to EVs over the next five years.8 MTE will provide the frame for the school uses and SEA will provide its SEA-drive propulsion system to convert the buses to EV.9 In a major local project, Logan Bus Company announced its collaboration with AMPLY Power and Unique Electric Solutions (UES) to deploy New York City’s first Type-C (conventional) school bus.10

Industry followers should expect further collaborations, because simplifying the route to adopting an EV fleet makes it more likely EV products will reach customers.

Opportunities Going Forward

Over the long haul, EV buses should do well. Scaling up investments and competition on the production side should facilitate making fleet modernization more affordable for school districts while supporting profit margins for manufacturers. EVs aren’t leaving town, so manufacturers, fleet operators, school districts and municipalities will either get on board or risk being left at the curb.

Article By Michael J. Small and Samantha Ruppenthal at Foley & Lardner LLP

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

 

 

1https://shop.scholastic.com/parent-ecommerce/series-and-characters/magic-school-bus.html

2https://www.busboss.com/blog/having-an-electric-school-bus-fleet-is-easier-than-many-people-think

3https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/570326-electric-school-bus-investments-could-drive-us-vehicle

4https://info.burnsmcd.com/white-paper/electrifying-the-nations-mass-transit-bus-fleets

5https://stnonline.com/partner-updates/electric-repower-the-cheaper-faster-and-easier-path-to-electric-buses/

6https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/296-21/recovery-all-us-mayor-de-blasio-commits-100-electric-school-bus-fleet-2035

7https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2021-02-16/highland-electric-transportation-raises-253-million-from-vision-ridge-partners-fontinalis-partners-and-existing-investors

8https://www.electrive.com/2021/12/07/sea-electric-to-convert-10k-us-school-buses/#:~:text=SEA%20Electric%20and%20Midwest%20Transit,become%20purely%20electric%20school%20buses.

9 Id.

10https://stnonline.com/news/new-york-city-deploys-first-type-c-electric-school-bus/

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

CFPB to Examine College Lending Practices

On January 20, the CFPB announced that it would begin examining the operations of post-secondary schools that offer private loans directly to students and update its exam procedures to include a new section on institutional student loans.  The CFPB highlights its concern about the student borrower experience in light of alleged past abuses at schools that were previously sued by the CFPB for unfair and abusive practices in connection with their in-house private loan programs.

When examining institutions offering private education loans, in addition to looking at general lending issues, CFPB examiners will be looking at the following areas:

  • Placing enrollment or attendance restrictions on students with loan delinquencies;
  • Withholding transcripts;
  • Accelerating payments;
  • Failing to issue refunds; and
  • Maintaining improper lending relationships

This announcement was accompanied by a brief remark from CFPB Director Chopra:  “Schools that offer students loans to attend their classes have a lot of power over their students’ education and financial future.  It’s time to open up the books on institutional student lending to ensure all students with private student loans are not harmed by illegal practices.”

Putting it Into Practice:  The CFPB’s concern with the experience of student borrowers is in line with a number of enforcement actions pursued by the Bureau against post-secondary schools.  The education loan exam procedures manual is intended for use by Bureau examiners, and is available as a resource to those subject to its exams. These procedures will be incorporated into the Bureau’s general supervision and examination manual.

Article By Moorari Shah, A.J. S. Dhaliwal, and Pouneh Almasi of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Making the Roster: Conflicting Title IX Interpretations Present Challenges for Transgendered Athlete Participation

Nationwide, college athletic programs are facing a dilemma: can they roster transgendered athletes on teams that conform with their gender identity? The answer is: it depends on where the team is located. In recent years, presidential administrations, Congress, states, and federal courts have weighed in on this issue. School athletics must not only take into account the guidelines and bylaws of the NCAA, but also must consider the federal guidance of the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, the recent rash of state laws that prohibit the participation of trans athletes in sports, and judicial decisions that interpret federal and state law. This is a daunting task as the four sets of rules (NCAA, federal law, state law, and judicial decisions) appear to be in conflict in interpreting the right to roster transgendered athletes to conform to the athletes’ gender identity.  These conflicting policies create risk for athletic departments of colleges and universities.

NCAA Guidelines

The NCAA has had a trans-inclusion policy in place for years, predating the current legal debate. The NCAA bylaws allow for transgendered athletes to participate on teams that conform with their gender identity if certain conditions are met regarding hormone therapy. Additionally, in August 2011, the NCAA issued guidelines (the “NCAA Guidelines”) on trans-inclusive policies for intercollegiate athletic teams. The NCAA Guidelines’ purpose was “to provide guidance to NCAA athletic programs about how to ensure transgendered student-athletes fair, respectful, and legal access to collegiate sports teams based on current medical and legal knowledge.” The NCAA Guidelines, among other things, advise institutions that “all members of the school community should receive information about transgender identities, non-discrimination policies, the use of pronouns and chosen names, and expectations for creating a respectful school and team climate for all students, including transgender students.” Further, they recommend that transgendered athletes be afforded access to the locker room and other facilities in accordance with their gender identity and that transgender student-athletes should be assigned hotel rooms according to their identified gender in the same manner that other members of the team are assigned rooms. The NCAA Guidelines’ purpose is to treat transgendered athletes the same way as their cisgendered teammates.

The NCAA recently reaffirmed its trans-inclusive policies, partly in response to the ongoing legal battles, and stated that it “regularly assesses its practices related to transgender participation and solicits feedback” from not only medical community experts and inclusion thought leaders, but also current and former student-athletes.  The NCAA included an educational session on transgender and nonbinary student-athlete participation in its annual Inclusion Forum, which took place June 2–4, 2021.

Federal Law and the Biden Administration’s Trans-Inclusive Policies

Titles VII and IX protect against sex discrimination.  Until recently, however, the scope of that protection to gay and transgender people was uncertain as court decisions were mixed and the previous administration did not include gay and transgender persons within the scope of sex discrimination under federal law.

In June 2020, the United States Supreme Court clarified that homosexual and transgender individuals are entitled to the protections of Title VII.[1]  In an affirmance of the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision, on his first day in office, President Biden issued an Executive Order, entitled, Preventing and Combating Discrimination Based on Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation. Among other declarations, the Executive Order asserts that “[a]ll persons should receive equal treatment under the law without regard to their gender identity or sexual orientation”, including that “[c]hildren should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, locker room, or school sports.” This Executive Order changed the federal government’s position on transgender rights from that which existed under the prior administration.

Since January 21, 2021, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division issued a memo to all federal agencies extending the protection to gay and transgender people under Title IX as well.  The Civil Rights Division wrote that based on the Bostock decision, Title IX also should be read as protecting the status of gay and transgender students. In its memo, the Division wrote: “After considering the text of Title IX, Supreme Court case law, and developing jurisprudence in this area, the Division has determined that the best reading of Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ is that it includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.”

On April 6, 2021, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which is responsible for enforcing Title IX, announced it would undertake a comprehensive review of its Title IX regulations.  It announced that “all students should be guaranteed an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, which encompasses sexual violence and including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

On June 16, 2021, the Office for Civil Rights issued a Notice of Interpretation, which states that the Department of Education interprets Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and based that interpretation on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock. The Office for Civil Rights concluded that such interpretation “is most consistent with the purpose of Title IX, which is to ensure equal opportunity and to protect individuals from the harms of sex discrimination.”[2]

Recent Anti-Transgender State Legislation

Transgendered athletes also face legal challenges on a state level. Eight states have passed laws prohibiting women from participating in sports outside of their birth gender[3] and over 30 states have introduced some form of bill that prohibits transgendered athletes from participating on single-sex sports teams. For example, in Arkansas, Governor Asa Hutchinson signed Senate Bill 354, which bans transgender women and girls from participating in school sports. The decision comes two weeks after Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed a similar bill, which will go into effect July 1, 2021. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge stated, “We don’t want common sense to be overshadowed by so-called political correctness, and this bill will ensure the integrity of girls and women in sports.” Florida’s law would require any athlete whose biological sex is disputed to have a health official examine the athlete’s reproductive anatomy.

North Carolina’s bill, known as the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” would prevent transgendered women from playing on women’s sports teams at public schools or universities as well. Texas’s legislature took a similar approach, introducing a bill that would prohibit transgendered athletes from participating on single-sex sports teams in public high schools, colleges, and universities. This week, Texas’ Governor called the legislature back into special session to vote on this bill.

Supreme Court’s Decisions on Sex Discrimination

In Bostock, the United States Supreme Court held that homosexual and transgender individuals are a protected class under Title VII. Bostock came to the Court as a consolidation of three Title VII appeals—two cases of which involved employees being fired for being gay and the third involved the firing of an employee who intended to undergo gender affirmation surgery. In a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court found that homosexual and transgender individuals were afforded “protected class” status under Title VII.  It found that the employers’ conduct constituted illegal discrimination. The majority, analyzing Title VII’s language that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, concluded that sex was so intertwined with sexual orientation and gender identity, that any discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily, in part, discrimination based on sex.[4]

The majority made clear that its definition of “sex” only should be applied to Title VII and employment matters. However, the Bostock ruling does seem to open the door to similar interpretation of Title IX. Such application might have, as Justice Alito mused in his dissenting opinion, unintended consequences, especially for college and university Athletic Departments.

This week, the Supreme Court determined that there are legitimate religious objections to the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and these objections are entitled to First Amendment protection against statutes to the contrary.  In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2021 WL 2459253 (June 17, 2021), the Court unanimously held that Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination laws (which were included in its foster care contracts) did not apply to a Catholic social services agency’s policy to exclude same-sex couples from foster placement. The Court determined the agency’s religious beliefs were entitled to First Amendment protection from Philadelphia’s local laws.  It held that the Catholic-based foster care agency was allowed to maintain its contract with the city and continue to bar same-sex couples from fostering.

While the Court focused on the wording of Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination ordinance in the Fulton decision, it may be read to exempt faith-based opposition to laws precluding discrimination against gay and transgendered individuals. Indeed, future rulings may allow religious colleges and universities to bar transgendered student-athletes.

Federal Courts Take Up the Debate

Other federal courts have decided cases involving transgendered athletes’ rights.[5]  In Hecox v. Little, two transgender women sued the state of Idaho over its Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits transgendered women from competing on women’s sports teams at public schools. The plaintiffs sought to apply Title IX anti-discrimination protections to declare the state law unconstitutional. The federal judge granted the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, temporarily prohibiting the law from becoming effective. The Ninth Circuit is now deliberating the constitutionality of the state law, following Idaho’s appeal of the district court’s injunction.

And, in Soule v. Connecticut, some cisgendered female high school athletes in Connecticut sued the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for violating Title IX.  The plaintiffs claimed the conference’s policies allowed transgendered athletes to unfairly dominate track and field events when those events were meant for cisgendered female competitors.  The Trump administration, which issued guidance that interpreted Title IX in line with the Connecticut plaintiffs’ arguments, supported the lawsuit. The court dismissed the Connecticut action on the ground of mootness.  The court held that because the transgendered athletes in question had already graduated from high school and would not be participating in CIAC events, there was nothing left to decide. The court did not decide the case on the merits.  The ACLU issued a statement that it intended to challenge any legislation that prohibited transgendered athletes from participating in interscholastic sports, so future litigation is likely.

Conclusion

Colleges and universities face risks and opportunities with regard to transgendered athletes. The NCAA by-laws and guidelines permit transgendered athletes to compete on teams that conform with their gender identity.  The federal government has issued administrative guidance, Executive Orders, and a Notice of Interpretation that would preclude institutions from discriminating against transgendered individuals, under Title VII or Title IX.  A number of states—eight and increasing —have enacted legislation that not only conflicts with federal guidance but also limits the rights of transgendered athletes. While courts so far have found restrictions on gay and transgendered persons to violate Title VII and Title IX, the United States Supreme Court may have limited the applicability of those decisions where there is a religious issue.  In short, courts are struggling to balance equal protection and Titles VII and IX guarantee with other constitutional protections.  And, of course, colleges and universities need to be able to articulate policies that are compliant with the law and their core values.

The resolution of these issues has real consequences on colleges and universities.  The resolution may affect the institution’s core values and donations.  It also may, in the athletic department, affect the ability to recruit and retain athletes.  The institution may find that its policies may conflict with those of the NCAA, and thereby risk eligibility or media rights revenues.   And, the institution’s policies may put it at the center of disagreements between its state and the federal government.

[1] See Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020) and the discussion in section 4 below.

[2] Notably, the Executive Orders, DOJ Memo, and the Notice of Interpretation are all silent as to any potential enforcement actions the Biden administration and its agencies would take against non-compliant institutions. Colleges and universities should be on the lookout for further guidance from the Department of Education on compliance with its Title IX interpretation—and consequences of noncompliance.

[3] Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee and West Virginia.

[4] In a dissent, Justice Alito pondered the effect the majority’s ruling would have on other matters involving sex discrimination, specifically whether the Court’s interpretation of Title VII—which focuses on employment—would impact Title IX, which applies to sex discrimination in educational and athletic programs.

[5] Hecox v. Little, 479 F.Supp.3d 930 (D. Idaho 2020); Soule v. Conn. Ass’n of Pub. Sch.,  No. 3:20-CV-00201-RNC, 2021 WL 1617206 (D. Conn. April 25, 2021) .

2021 Goulston & Storrs PC.
For more articles on Title IX, visit the NLR Public Education & Services section.

ICE To Increase STEM OPT Worksite Inspections

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has recently increased site visits for employers who employ F-1 students under STEM OPT (short for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics Optional Practical Training) work authorization. While ICE has had this authority since the STEM regulations were passed in 2016, the agency only recently started conducting site visits to ensure that employers and F-1 students remain in compliance with the regulations governing F-1 STEM OPT work authorization.

What Is STEM OPT?

STEM OPT allows eligible F-1 visa students with STEM degrees from accredited U.S. colleges or universities to apply for an additional 24 months of Occupational Practical Training. This is in addition to the initial, one-year post-completion OPT granted to all non-STEM-degree F-1 students. In addition to the STEM degree requirements, the F-1 visa student must secure employment with a bona fide employer, work a minimum of 20 hours per week for that employer, and the employer must provide a formal, practical training and learning program within the STEM field which is related to the F-1 student’s degree. Details of the training program are outlined by the employer on Form I-983, which is submitted to and approved by the Designated School Official at the F-1 student’s academic institution.

What Is a Site Visit?

ICE conducts site visits to ensure that STEM OPT students receive the structured and guided work-based learning experiences required by the regulations. The purpose of the site visit is to confirm that information reported on the F-1 student’s Form I-983 training plan is accurate and being executed by the employer.

ICE generally notifies employers at least 48 hours prior to conducting a STEM OPT site visit. However, ICE is authorized to conduct unannounced site visits in the event that the agency receives a complaint or other evidence of noncompliance with STEM OPT guidelines. ICE has been sending emails directly to the managers of F-1 student STEM OPT trainees with an attached Notice of Site Visit. These communications contain:

  • The date of the scheduled visit;
  • A list of F-1 students whose STEM OPT training has been selected for inspection;
  • A request for a copy of each F-1 student’s Form I-983, Training Plan for STEM OPT Students; and
  • A request for other documentation related to the organization’s STEM OPT training program.

If you receive any communication from ICE or the Department of Homeland Security, please notify your attorney immediately before responding. This is to ensure both the legitimacy of the correspondence as well as to ensure that an appropriate response is submitted to ICE.

What Will Happen During a Site Visit?

The purpose of the STEM OPT site visit is to ensure that the employer and F-1 student are following the training plan as outlined in the Form I-983, and that the employer possesses the ability and resources to provide the structured and guided work-based learning experiences outlined in the training plan. During a site visit, ICE may review several aspects of the F-1 student’s STEM OPT training plan, including a review of pay documents to ensure that the student is being paid properly, a review of the Form I-983 training plan, and a review of the trainee’s workspace.

The inspection may include individual interviews with company personnel, a review and discussion of the F-1 student’s training plan and its implementation, and a review of the F-1 student’s skills and degree in relation to the STEM degree. ICE may also request to view F-1 student workspaces or receive a tour of the premises.

It is important that students and STEM OPT employers accurately and comprehensively complete the Form I-983 training plan, and that the F-1 student, the student’s immediate manager, and the immigration contact are all familiar with the contents of the Form I-983 training plan. Inconsistencies between the opportunity as described in the training plan and what the student is actually doing can have serious consequences for students and employers.

While this type of site visit should focus exclusively on STEM OPT, if evidence of other immigration-related violations is found during the site visit, ICE may address the violation or refer it to the appropriate agency or ICE unit for further review.

How Can I Prepare for a Site Visit?

At each worksite where an F-1 STEM OPT student is being trained, your organization should designate a point of contact, such as a human resource or immigration manager, to receive ICE officers. Receptionists and security personnel should be advised to complete the following steps should an ICE officer arrive to conduct an inspection:

  1. Notify the designated point of contact to inform him or her that an ICE officer has arrived to conduct a site inspection;
  2. Verify the officer’s identity: ask to see and take note of the officer’s identification, including badge, name, and ID number. Ask for the officer’s business card and call the number on the card to verify the identity of the officer. Officers should expect this and it is important that the officer’s identity is verified before disclosing or discussing employee information;
  3. Wait for the designated point of contact to arrive before releasing any information.

During the visit, the officer will ask questions, request documentation, and may take photographs. The designated point of contact should remain with the officer throughout the visit and take detailed notes, including the name, title and contact information of each officer; the names and titles of anyone interviewed by the officer; questions asked during interviews; any company documents provided to the officer; worksite areas visited by the officer; and any photographs taken by the officer. If company documents are provided to the officer, the designated point of contact should be sure to list the documents provided and retain copies. If the officer takes photographs of the worksite, the designated point of contact should ask for copies. The officer may request that the designated point of contact not be present during interviews with the F-1 student or managers. In this instance, the designated point of contact should remain available to answer any questions that may arise.

Managers, supervisors and F-1 students should be prepared to answer questions on the following topics:

  • The information provided in the trainee’s Form I-983 training plan;
  • The nature of the F-1 student’s job duties at the organization;
  • How the job duties relate to the F-1 student’s degree and academic program;
  • Why the F-1 student is qualified for the position;
  • What qualifications managers look for when hiring for similar positions;
  • How the manager supervises the F-1 student and executes the training plan; and
  • If the F-1 student is placed at a third-party worksite, how does the manager supervise the F-1 student and implement the training plan.

Special Note for California Worksites: Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450)

Employers who have worksites in California are also required to comply with portions of the Immigrant Worker Protection Act. In 2017, California passed the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450), placing requirements on how public and private employers could interact with Federal immigration authorities. On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit challenging the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, and on July 5, 2018, the U.S. District court enjoined California from enforcing portions of the law related to worksite inspections and employment eligibility as it applied to private employers. This means that private employers cannot currently be prosecuted for:

  1. Allowing or consenting to a federal immigration enforcement agent’s request to enter nonpublic areas in the workplace;
  2. Voluntarily allowing the federal immigration enforcement agent access to employee records; or
  3. Re-verifying the employment eligibility of a current employee outside the time and manner required by federal law, under Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code.

Private employers are still required to comply with the notice requirement provisions of the Immigrant Worker Protection Act. An explanation of the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, and information regarding the Act’s notice requirements, can be found here.

© 2019 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP

Read more regarding ICE activities on the National Law Review Immigration Law page.

UPDATE: NCAA Flexes Its Muscle in Response to California Fair Pay To Play Act

NCAA President Mark Emmert has predicted that it would become “impossible” for the NCAA to consider California colleges eligible to participate in national championship competitions should California pass the Fair Pay To Play Act (SB 206) and allow college athletes to maintain their amateur status while accepting pay for marketing their name, image and likeness (as discussed in our recent blog posts on March 4, 2019, and May 23, 2019).

Emmert stated this in a letter to Senator Nancy Skinner, the sponsor of the proposed legislation, and the Chairpersons of two California State Assembly Committees (the Arts Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Committee and the Higher Education Committee).

Emmert has requested the two committees postpone consideration of the proposed legislation while the NCAA convenes an investigatory working group of school presidents and athletics administrators who will be reviewing the current prohibition on NCAA athletes earning income from the use of their names, images, and likenesses. The working group, led by Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman and Ohio State University Athletic Director Gene Smith, is authorized to propose specific recommendations to potentially reform and modify current NCAA Bylaws.

In his letter, Emmert recognized the California legislature’s efforts in developing the bill, but noted, “when contrasted with current NCAA rules,

the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships.”

Emmert continued, “… it likely would have a negative impact on the exact students athletes it intends to assist.”

The timing of President Emmert’s request presents a dilemma for the California state legislature as the Ackerman and Smith-led NCAA group is not scheduled to update the NCAA Board of Governors until August and will not issue a final report until late-October, more than a month after the end of the current California legislative session considering SB 206.

SB 206 was just approved by the Committee on Arts without any formal opposition. The bill is now headed to the 12-member Committee on Higher Education, which must express its approval before July 11 and before the 61 Democratic members of the full 80-member California assembly will have an opportunity to consider the bill.

In its current form, the legislation would prohibit a California postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference, or any other organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, from preventing student-athletes from earning compensation in connection with the use of the student-athlete’s name, image, or likeness. This would result in colleges, such as perennial sports powers like UCLA, USC, the University of California, and Stanford from being unable to stop their male and female student-athletes from signing endorsement deals or licensing contracts under the NCAA prohibition, circumventing the power and authority of the NCAA.

Senator Skinner responded to Emmert’s letter, saying, “It’s definitely a threat to colleges.”

She continued, “And this is what I think is so ironic: They are colleges. The NCAA is an association of colleges, and yet they’re threatening California colleges and saying that they would not allow them to participate in championships if my bill passes.”

Skinner reminded the public that if her bill were signed into law, it would not go into effect for another three years. She said the NCAA would have ample time to assess its own rules regarding student-athlete compensation. “Both the colleges and the NCAA have plenty of time to do the right thing,” she said.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
For more on NCAA and other sports news see the National Law Review page on Entertainment, Art & Sports.

State Sovereignty 101: State Universities Not Immune to IPR Proceedings

School may be out for the summer, but public colleges and universities would do well to spend their break shoring up strategies and defenses against potential inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. Last week the Federal Circuit ruled that states and state agencies (including state affiliated colleges and universities) may not rely on a sovereign immunity defense in a patent IPR proceeding. This decision means that challenges against University of Minnesota patents will proceed at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), and that other state affiliated educational institutions also may be subject to such proceedings.

The June 14 decision could open the floodgates to other IPR challenges against patents held by public colleges, universities, and other state entities. State colleges and universities should plan on adjusting various intellectual property clauses of licenses, sponsored research, and other technology transfer and funding agreements in efforts to mitigate the risks associated with an IPR challenge. These institutions also should carefully evaluate and plan for this risk in any assertion or even licensing efforts where a risk of an IPR may arise. Further, public colleges and universities should develop internal strategic plans to reduce the risk of an IPR occurring and to have various strategic approaches to IPR situations should an IPR challenge, or even a threat of an IPR challenge, occur in the future.

In the dispute, Ericsson challenged multiple patents held by the University of Minnesota relating to wireless technologies. The University of Minnesota also faces separate patent challenges to a computer hardware patent and a university patent related to hepatitis C medication.

The Federal Circuit held that for purposes of IPRs, state sovereign immunity is essentially the same as tribal sovereign immunity held by Native American tribes. In 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled that Saint Regis Mohawk could not employ tribal sovereign immunity in a dispute before the PTAB.

“[An] IPR represents the sovereign’s reconsideration of the initial patent grant, and the differences between state and tribal sovereign immunity do not warrant a different result than Saint Regis. We therefore conclude that state sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings,” the Court wrote in the June 14 ruling. Regents of the Univ. of Minn. V. LSI Corp., No. 2018-1559, 27 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 14, 2019).

The Federal Circuit also wrote that IPR proceedings differ substantively from typical civil litigation, to which sovereign immunity would normally apply unless waived. Instead, the Court writes that IPR proceedings “are essentially agency reconsideration of a prior patent grant.”

In other words, IPRs are more akin to a government agency enforcement action than a civil suit. The PTAB’s primary focus is determining whether a previous patent grant was made in error, rather than resolving a dispute between two adversarial parties. The PTAB may issue a ruling even if the petitioner or patent owner decides not to participate, unlike in civil litigation.

A petition for certiorari was filed in Saint Regis but was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, which effectively allowed the Federal Circuit decision to stand. It remains to be seen if the University of Minnesota will appeal this ruling or if certiorari would be granted, but if allowed to stand, it is fair to anticipate a significant increase in patent IPR challenges to public colleges and universities as well as to other state agencies.

Click here to read the full opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Copyright © 2019 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
Read more about patent inter partes review proceedings on the National Law Review Intellectual Property page.

Tackling Evictions: BYU And UA Law Schools Partner On Legal Research Project

The nationwide trends of stagnating wages and increasing housing costs has led to an increased risk of evictions for renters across the country. According to Matthew Desmond’s 2017 book Evicted, “Today, the majority of poor renting families in America spend more than half of their income on housing, and at least one in four dedicates more than 70% to paying the rent and keeping the lights on.”

Most evictions happen informally, and even formal evictions are rarely contested in court. Less than 20 percent of tenants served with an eviction notice come to court, and so viable legal defenses often go unheard. A new initiative is trying to help tenants facing eviction find appropriate legal assistance.

Legal Innovation: LawX & Innovation for Justice

The J. Reuben Clark Law School (BYU Law) at Brigham Young University and the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona have joined forces to create a program focused on tackling the legal complexities of eviction law. BYU’s LawX legal design lab, and UA’s Innovation for Justice (I4J) program are working together to reduce the number of evictions in and help tenants find quality legal representation.

“Given the sheer volume of evictions in America, we believe this is the right issue for LawX to tackle in its second year, and we welcome collaboration with the University of Arizona Law School,” said Gordon Smith, Dean of BYU Law School. “This past year, our LawX students uncovered some sobering statistics on hurdles in the legal system that make it extremely difficult for a non-lawyer to respond to lawsuits, particularly in the areas of debt collection, evictions and divorce.”

The program will focus on tackling the eviction crisis in Arizona and Utah, with hopes the collaboration could result in solutions applicable beyond the region. In 2016, Utah averaged 7.61 evictions per day and Pima County, Arizona, where the UA is located, averaged 22.01 evictions per day, according to Eviction Lab.

Kimball Parker, LawX director and president of Parsons Behle Product Lab, will lead the initiative at BYU, while Stacy Butler, director of I4J, will lead the project at UA. With a primary focus on technology, design and system thinking, and collaboration, both classes will focus on resolving the current status of eviction law, especially the lack of legal representation for an underserved community.

Eviction Law: A Focus On Underserved Communities

“The goals of the Innovation for Justice program are to expose students to the fact that not everyone is able to use the civil legal system as it’s designed, and to empower students to close that gap,” Butler said. “LawX’s focus on reaching people who are not engaging with the civil legal system is critical to making the system work the way it should.”

LawX will highlight the difficulties non-lawyers would have in dealing with different areas of law including divorce, debt collection, and eviction laws. One of the particular challenges is the difference in how each state–and municipality–handles evictions. Often the laws are weighted heavily in favor of the landlord. For example, in Utah, a tenant has just three days to respond to an eviction notice, so often landlords give notice on a Friday, further limiting a tenant’s options

“An eviction can be life-changing to an individual or family, and it can result in homelessness; our research determined that evictions have one of the highest rates of default among those who can’t afford an attorney,” said Parker. “I am excited to work with Stacy on this project and believe her extensive experience with expanding the reach of civil legal services to those in need will be incredibly valuable.”

A Tangible Solution For Renters

Parker says the goal is to create a tangible solution for renters, whether that is a product or some other solution, but the students will start by surveying. One of the first questions they hope to answer: why don’t more tenants seek relief in the legal system?

This collaboration project comes on the heels of LawX’s previous project to assist debtors facing debt collections lawsuits who couldn’t afford legal representation. That project resulted in creation of an award-winning software program, SoloSuit, which helps debtors respond to collections notices.

“This past year, our LawX students uncovered some sobering statistics on hurdles in the legal system that make it extremely difficult for a non-lawyer to respond to lawsuits, particularly in the areas of debt collection, evictions and divorce,” said Gordon Smith, Dean of BYU Law School. “With this legal design lab in a classroom, we are committed to identifying the best possible solutions to help close the gap for people who feel overwhelmed by the legal system.

Hands-on Legal Experience for Law Students

“Programs like Innovation for Justice and LawX offer important learning experiences for our undergraduate and graduate students. They represent a movement in legal education to adapt and to be more interdisciplinary in how we approach the world,” said UA Law Dean Marc Miller. “Students get to take a deep dive into a specific project to produce a community deliverable. They engage with the community and in doing so, begin to understand how their learning can be applied outside of the classroom.”

Using a design thinking approach, up to six LawX students and 12 Innovation for Justice students will start work on the project in the fall 2018 semester with three goals:

  • understand why tenants disengage with the civil legal system

  • identify innovative approaches to educating and engaging tenants

  • develop strategies for delivering possible solutions into the hands of those who need help most.

By working in a law school classroom setting, the program strives to help provide answers and solutions to under-represented communities, who find difficulties in understanding the law, or finding appropriate resources to help them tackle impending hurdles.

Findings and shared information will eventually lead to solutions which can extend beyond Utah and Arizona’s borders. Conversely, the program might lead to separate projects addressing regional barriers to help reduce eviction totals.

 

Copyright ©2018 National Law Forum, LLC
Article by:

San Mateo Gardens Teaches College District a Lesson on Picking Thorny Subsequent Review Procedure

The California Supreme Court recently addressed an important California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue: Who decides whether CEQA’s subsequent review provisions are applicable when there are changes to an adopted project? Subsequent review provisions include a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND), a supplemental EIR, or an addendum to an EIR or ND.  When a project that has been reviewed and finalized under CEQA is altered, what type of review process under CEQA is required, if any?  As we said before on Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District et al., (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937 (Friends of the College), the Court determined that the lead agency makes this determination.  The question that the lead agency should be analyzing is whether the original document “retains some informational value” – if it does, then CEQA’s subsequent review procedures apply.  Should the lead agency’s decision be challenged, then the Court must decide whether “substantial evidence” supports the lead agency’s conclusion.

The First District Court of Appeal thus took up applying this standard on remand. In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District et al., (2017 WL *1829176) (San Mateo Gardens), the Court of Appeal upheld the San Mateo County Community College District’s determination that it could proceed under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions.  The District had previously analyzed its project, including the demolition or renovation of some buildings on a San Mateo college campus, through a mitigated negative declaration (MND).  After a failure to obtain funding for renovations to the “Building 20 complex,” the District altered the project to include demolition of Building 20 and its associated gardens (the centerpiece of the dispute) and to renovate two other buildings that were previously slated for demolition.  The District determined that these changes would “not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed” in the original MND, and thus proceeded to adopt the alteration through a subsequent review procedure document called an addendum.

The Court of Appeal held that the District’s decisions to proceed by CEQA’s subsequent review procedures was supported by substantial evidence. The relevant changes only altered the treatment of three buildings while leaving alone plans to demolish 14 others with attendant mitigation measures.

That the District could proceed by CEQA’s subsequent review procedures, however, only answers the first question. The subsidiary, and more “critical” issue, is “to determine whether the agency has properly determined how to comply with its obligations under those provisions.” Friends of the College, 1 Cal.5th at 953.  In other words, which subsequent review procedure is correct to use.  The Court of Appeal held that a more rigorous standard of review is applicable at this second step when a project is originally accompanied by a negative declaration than when an approved project is originally analyzed through an EIR.  This more rigorous standard looks to whether the negative declaration will require a “major revision.”  A major revision is required when “there is ‘substantial evidence that the changes to a project for which a negative declaration was previously approved might have a significant environmental impact not previously considered in connection with the project as originally approved.’ ” San Mateo Gardens, 2017 WL *1829176 (quoting Friends of the College, 1 Cal.5th at 959).  If the project was previously analyzed through an EIR, however, the agency may proceed without a subsequent EIR so long as substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that no major revisions to the original document are necessary.

It is at this critical second step that the District failed. The Court of Appeal determined that there was substantial evidence that the altered project might have a significant “aesthetic impact”, which is a cognizable environmental impact under CEQA.  The “Building 20 complex” demolition would include removal of gardens which were of particular value to the college community for aesthetic purposes.  The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the District violated CEQA in analyzing the altered project through an addendum when a subsequent EIR or MND was necessary.

The takeaway from this case is that lead agencies will have to be especially keen on determining the impact of project changes when the original project is adopted by a negative declaration. While the original document may retain some residual “informational value,” and thus allow CEQA’s subsequent review procedures, it may be difficult to show that project changes do not require some type of further environmental review. It is the lead agencyiess responsibility to determine the need for and type of further review, but that decision must be based upon substantial evidence.

This article was written by David H. McCray and Jacob P. Duginski of Beveridge & Diamond P.C.

Is ‘Loss of Value’ Insurance Worth The Price For Student-Athletes, Universities??

Disability insurance policies are frequently secured by college football players, especially those who expect to be selected in the early rounds of the NFL draft. These policies are typically secured by the player in one or two forms. One option allows players to secure coverage to protect against “total permanent disability”. Such coverage would only pay the athlete in the event of a catastrophic, career ending injury. Alternative policies can protect the athlete against the potential “loss of value” tied to the player’s projected draft position. This type of insurance coverage provides a player protection in the event his projected draft position drops because of injury. Typically, the policy would make up the difference the projected bonus money and the actual contract amount secured by the player. Unfortunately, ‘loss of value’ insurance policies, may not be as easy to collect on as initially thought.

High-profile players, including 2015 NFL Draft’s No. 1 pick Jameis Winston, have secured the insurance expecting that if an injury causes their draft stock to fall, thus resulting in a lesser contract, they can collect on the policy to recoup some of the lost earnings. Jameis Winston’s premium for “loss of value” insurance was reportedly paid out of the Florida State University’s Student Assistance Fund (SAF). The SAF allows schools to “assist student-athletes in meeting financial needs that arise in conjunction with participation in intercollegiate athletics, enrollment in an academic curriculum or that recognize academic achievement.”

In addition to schools using the NCAA authorized Student Assistance Fund to pay insurance premiums for star athletes, the NCAA issued a waiver after the start of the 2014 football season creating a new avenue for college football players to secure loss of value insurance. While student-athletes had previously been able to secure the loss of value insurance only with their own funds or the use of SAF, purchasing the insurance became easier in October, when the NCAA began granting waivers to student-athletes, allowing them to purchase the insurance by borrowing against their future earnings to secure a loan from an established, accredited commercial lending institution, for the purpose of purchasing loss-of-value insurance. However, despite the increasing popularity of the loss of value insurance, no collegiate student-athlete has been able to collect on a policy, according to ESPN’s Darren Rovell. Former University of Southern California wide receiver Marqise Lee is currently experiencing the challenges of trying to collect on his policy.

Lee, once projected as a first round pick, purchased loss of value insurance in August 2013. He paid a $94,600 premium for $9.6 million in coverage. Lee believed that the coverage protected him if his draft position dropped and he signed a rookie contract worth significantly less than that the projected $9.6 million amount. Lee injured his left knee just two games into the 2013 season. As a result of the injury, Lee’s draft position dropped to the 39th overall pick in the 2014 NFL draft. Ultimately, he signed a contract with the Jacksonville Jaguars for $5.17 million. Lee filed an insurance claim and attempted to collect on the policy, but was unable to do as the insurance company raised a defense that Lee had misled with regard to pertinent medical information. In March 2015, Lee, along with a former USC teammate facing a similar issue, sued the insurance company over their failure to honor the policy.

Lee’s lawsuit highlights the potential challenges of collecting on loss of value policies. While the securing of insurance policies for student-athletes has indeed become a tool for universities to help keep star players remain in school and to temporarily forego the NFL, the possible issues related to collection are apparent. The University of Oregon utilized its SAF to purchase policies for its players, including cornerback Ifo Ekpre-Olomu. Ekpre-Olomu, once projected as a first round pick, likely will attempt to collect on his policy after an ACL injury in December 2014 caused him to fall to the seventh round of the 2015 Draft. The cornerback’s policy, which cost the University of Oregon $40,000, calls for a $3 million payout since Ekpre-Olomu late round selection was well after the coverage threshold of the first picks of the third round of the 2015 Draft.

All athletes that utilize the NCAA waiver to purchase insurance or universities that allocate SAF to purchase loss of value insurance will need to monitor Lee’s lawsuit and Ekpre-Olomu’s attempt to collect on his policy. If student-athletes continue to face difficulties collecting on their policies, both student-athletes and their universities will need to reconsider whether such policies are worth the cost.

Authored by Michael B. Ackerstein  and Gregg E. Clifton of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015