Sasser Sefton Tipton & Davis

Sasser, Sefton, Tipton & Davis, P.C.
Montgomery, Alabama

In the November 9, 2011, issue of the Federal Register (76 Fed. Reg. 70010), the Office of Head Start published final regulations to implement the designation renewal (more commonly called "recompetition") provisions of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. The Office of Head Start published its proposed recompetition regulations in the fall of 2010, but the proposed regulations proved controversial within the Head Start community. The final regulations contain several changes from the proposed regulations, including the removal of a 25% minimum level for recompetition contained in the original, proposed regulations. The final regulations take effect in one month on December 9, 2011. President Obama announced the new, final Head Start recompetition regulations on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, during a speech at Yeadon Regional Head Start in Philadelphia.

Sasser, Sefton, Tipton & Davis, P.C.
Montgomery, Alabama

On March 18, 2011, the Office of Head Start published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the Head Start and Early Head Start regulations governing eligibility.  The proposed changes would codify the statutory standards for Head Start and Early Head Start eligibility under the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007.  The proposed changes would also add new requirements for verification, certification, and maintenance of eligibility records for Head Start and Early Head Start in response to the Government Accountability Office's investigation of possible eligibility and enrollment abuses at two grantees.  These requirements include new certifications by parents (and others) applying for services as well as new certifications by program staff making eligibility determinations.  Comments on the proposed rules are due by 11:59 P.M. Eastern on April 18, 2011.

Sasser, Sefton, Tipton & Davis, P.C.
Montgomery, Alabama

On March 1, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Staub v. Proctor Hospital that an employer can be liable for employment discrimination in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) under a “cat’s paw” theory of liability.  The cat’s paw theory posits that an employer can be held liable for discrimination if the actions of an employee motivated by unlawful bias are a proximate cause of the discriminatory employment action taken, even if the ultimate decision-maker was not motivated by unlawful bias.  In essence, the ultimate decision-maker is merely taking the action intended by the person actually motivated by animus.  Although the Staub case concerned allegations of discrimination under USERRA, the Court’s decision may well have an impact on other areas of employment law because of the similarity of USERRA’s anti-discrimination provisions to Title VII's anti-discrimination provisions.