New Jersey Law Journal, “When Federal Regulations and Collective Negotiation Agreements Collide: What ‘Rutgers’ Means for Federally Funded New Jersey Institutions of Higher Education,” by Gregory S. Hyman, Esq. and Iram P. Valentin, Esq., 6-4-2026

Kaufman Dolowich’s Gregory S. Hyman, Co-Managing Partner of KD’s Philadelphia office, and Iram P. Valentin, Co-Chair of the firm’s Professional Liability Practice Group, authored an insightful article discussing the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Rutgers decision and what it means for educational institutions navigating the intersection of federal Title IX requirements and collective bargaining agreements.

Read the full article below:

When Federal Regulations and Collective Negotiation Agreements Collide: What ‘Rutgers’ Means for Federally Funded New Jersey Institutions of Higher Education

For New Jersey educational institutions in particular, the case may represent an early indication that courts will expect greater procedural integration across compliance, disciplinary and labor systems moving forward.

By Gregory S. Hyman and Iram P. Valentin

June 4, 2026

 The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888 (Jan. 29, 2026) is significant not only for its interpretation of the effect of regulations (Regulations) promulgated in 2020 by the U.S. Department of Education pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681 to 1689 (Title IX), but also for its resolution of the conflict between Title IX’s Regulations and the grievance procedure under collectively negotiated agreements. The court held that a 2019 collective negotiation grievance procedure in a collective negotiation agreement between Rutgers and AFSCME Local 888 was preempted by Title IX because it conflicted with the Regulations requiring that any grievance or appeal procedures outside of the Regulations must apply equally to both the alleged victim/complainant and the alleged harasser/respondent.

The Regulations were promulgated in May 2020 by the Department of Education (DOE). The Regulations address sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. Later in 2020, Rutgers adopted a Title IX policy that included a grievance procedure in compliance with the Regulations. The grievance procedure was triggered in February of 2022, after a female employee filed a complaint against a male co-worker alleging physical assault and a pattern of sexual harassment.

Rutgers investigated the complaint and issued a detailed report of the investigation’s findings. At a subsequent hearing, the Title IX decision makers determined that the alleged harasser violated certain provisions of the university’s Title IX Policy and the university policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment. The decision makers determined that just cause existed to terminate the alleged harasser’s employment. His internal appeal was denied and his employment was terminated. Local 888 then filed a grievance on his behalf and made a meeting request to determine if respondent was terminated for just cause. Rutgers denied the meeting request on federal preemption grounds, since the collectively negotiated arbitration procedure would exclude the victim/complainant from the arbitration, thereby violating the Title IX Regulations requiring that the grievance process apply equally to both parties. The victim/complainant would be excluded because the arbitration would only concern whether the alleged harasser’s employment was terminated for just cause, also constituting a collateral attack on the Title IX investigation.

Specifically, at issue in Rutgers was whether a unionized employee could pursue post-disciplinary arbitration under a collective negotiation agreement after Rutgers had completed its Title IX process and imposed discipline. According to Rutgers, Title IX preempts the grievance procedure in the collective negotiation agreement. The court rejected the argument that the Regulations applied only to the pre-disciplinary Title IX process, concluding that the equal-treatment requirement also extends to the post-disciplinary grievance-arbitration process.

That holding does not mean that arbitration is inherently incompatible with Title IX, nor does it eliminate collectively bargained disciplinary protections in all circumstances. It means, however, that where a labor contract creates a review process that undermines federally required Title IX protections, the federal Title IX regulations preempt the conflicting contractual procedure. Importantly, the court also recognized that Rutgers and the union remained free to negotiate grievance procedures that comply with Title IX’s equal-participation requirements.

A Coordinated Compliance Problem

Historically, many institutions treated Title IX proceedings, labor grievances, employee discipline, and internal HR investigations as related but separate processes. Rutgers shows that approach can create legal risk where overlapping procedures create inconsistent rights or conflicting obligations. The court’s focus was not on arbitration per se, but on a grievance structure that produced procedural asymmetry.

Under the grievance-arbitration framework at issue, the disciplined employee could challenge the Title IX result through arbitration, but the complainant would not have comparable participation rights in that proceeding. The court viewed that structure as incompatible with the 2020 Title IX Regulations, which require grievance procedures to apply equally to both parties.

That distinction matters because the decision leaves room for institutions and unions to revisit and redesign grievance procedures in a way that preserves labor rights while remaining compliant with Title IX. In other words, the problem was not arbitration in the abstract; it was arbitration in a form that conflicted with the federal rules.

Why It Matters

The broader significance of Rutgers lies in the court’s willingness to enforce procedural coordination across institutional systems. Colleges and universities often operate within overlapping frameworks involving Title IX, labor laws, workplace investigations, student conduct obligations, federal compliance oversight, and collective bargaining requirements. In practice, those systems are frequently administered by different departments on different timelines.

The timing of the Rutgers decision is also important. Over the last several years, educational institutions have repeatedly revised Title IX policies and procedures in response to changing federal regulations, litigation challenges, and shifting enforcement priorities. Many institutions focused on updating investigative and hearing procedures but may not have simultaneously reevaluated collective negotiation agreements, disciplinary appeal mechanisms, and related employment processes for procedural consistency. Rutgers highlights the legal risks that can emerge when those systems evolve separately rather than as part of a coordinated compliance framework.

The decision also underscores a practical point: a Title IX determination may not be the end of the matter if another institutional process can later alter the result without affording both parties equal procedural participation rights consistent with Title IX. That may create potential exposure not only under Title IX, but also in related litigation and internal governance disputes.

Institutional Review Points

For many institutions, the practical challenge will not simply be rewriting one policy. It will be coordinating systems that historically developed independently. Title IX coordinators, human resources personnel, labor counsel, employee relations teams, student affairs administrators, and outside counsel may all be involved in the same matter, yet operate under separate procedures, timelines, and governing documents. Rutgers demonstrates how procedural gaps between those systems can create legal vulnerabilities.

Institutions should consider evaluating:

• Whether collective negotiation agreements permit post-disciplinary review procedures that materially differ from Title IX protections
• Whether complainants are afforded equivalent notice and participation rights in any appeal or arbitration process that could affect a Title IX outcome
• Whether disciplinary procedures, labor agreements, and Title IX policies are internally synchronized rather than drafted as standalone systems
• Whether institutional stakeholders are trained to recognize where labor rights and Title IX obligations intersect
• Whether existing procedures could inadvertently create conflicting obligations under federal law

The Rutgers decision may also prompt institutions to reconsider how they structure future labor negotiations involving disciplinary review provisions tied to harassment, discrimination and misconduct findings. The question is not whether a union contract can include an arbitration provision, but whether the arbitration procedure can be reconciled with Title IX’s equal-participation requirements.

Narrow Holding, Broader Signal

The Rutgers decision remains fact specific. It involved a public university, a unionized workforce, a collective negotiation agreement and the federal Title IX Regulations applicable at the time. The ruling does not invalidate all grievance arbitration rights in Title IX-related matters, nor does it establish that every labor procedure involving disciplinary review is preempted.

Still, the opinion reflects a broader judicial willingness to scrutinize whether institutional procedures function cohesively when federal civil rights obligations are implicated. For New Jersey educational institutions in particular, the case may represent an early indication that courts will expect greater procedural integration across compliance, disciplinary and labor systems moving forward.

The larger lesson from Rutgers may therefore be less about arbitration itself and more about procedural alignment among policies. Where federal civil rights requirements intersect with collectively negotiated disciplinary rights, institutions may need to ensure that every stage of the process functions as part of a coordinated and legally consistent framework.

Gregory S. Hyman is co-managing partner of Kaufman Dolowich’s Philadelphia office and also practices in New Jersey. He defends public and private employers in employment practices liability matters and has extensive experience in the representation of school boards for public, private secondary schools and universities, and charter schools.
Iram P. Valentin is a partner in the Hackensack office of Kaufman Dolowich, and co-chair of Kaufman Dolowich’s national professional liability practice group. He represents commercial and nonprofit entities in several industries including public and private education clients in employment practices liability and other employer-side liability matters.

Reprinted with permission from the June 4, 2026 edition of “New Jersey Law Journal” © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or reprints@alm.com. “