Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Doe v. Univ. of N. Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. (5th Cir. July 16, 2024)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff, a former medical student at the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine at the University of North Texas Health Science Center who was permitted to take a medical leave of absence, brought due process and equal protection claims against multiple officials in their individual capacities after he was dismissed from the program for failure to meet the conditions of his return. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University. In affirming on his due process claim, the Fifth Circuit held that three separate emails were constitutionally sufficient notice of his academic dismissal, notwithstanding plaintiff’s assertion that the University should have known that he was not checking his email. In affirming summary judgment on his equal protection claim, it held that because he failed to identify a similarly situated student who was treated differently, he was unable to show that the officials discriminated against him based on a perception of a mental disability.   

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Students

  • Date:

    Doe v. Univ. of Pa. (3rd Cir. May 24, 2024) (unpub.)

    Opinion affirming denial of anonymity. Plaintiff, who enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania in 2020, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she was suspended for a year and a half for academic dishonesty. She alleged that the professor who reported the misconduct had discriminated against her by grading her unfairly and denying her requests for extensions, and that the dishonesty investigation was in retaliation for her reporting the alleged discrimination. The district court denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym. In affirming, the Third Circuit found plaintiff’s assertion that she might suffer embarrassment and economic harm by proceeding absent a pseudonym insufficient to allege a reasonable fear of severe harm.  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students

  • Date:

    Dudley v. Boise State Univ. (D. Idaho May 3, 2024)

    Memorandum Decision and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a graduate of Boise State University, brought due process claims against the University after her degree was revoked for misconduct during a required internship. After she graduated with a B.A. in Social Work, passed a licensing exam, and became a licensed social worker, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare informed the University that plaintiff had accessed without authorization confidential records pertaining to child protection cases involving individuals she knew personally. As a result, the University changed her internship grade from Pass to Fail, updated her transcripts, cancelled her degree, and sent a revised transcript to the state Board of Social Work Examiners. After the court declined to extend a temporary restraining order, the University proceeded to a Student Conduct Hearing that found plaintiff responsible for the misconduct and sanctioned her with degree revocation and expulsion. In granting the University’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege a property interest in her University education because she cited no state law conferring such a right. It further held that even assuming both a property interest and that the actions were disciplinary in nature, the University’s conduct hearing and subsequent appeal process afforded her sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Students

  • Date:

    Babakr v. Fowles (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024)

    Order and Judgment affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former doctoral student at the University of Kansas who was an international student from Iraq, brought Title VI retaliation and constitutional claims against the University and numerous officials after he failed his first attempt at his Specialization Exam, demanded multiple postponements of his rescheduled exam, and sought multiple changes to his specialization and advisor. Along the way, he filed one grievance, alleging that program officials retaliated against him for threatening to report their denial of his repeated requests for changes. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Tenth Circuit found that his Title VI retaliation claim failed because he had not alleged in his grievance that the denials were based on his race or national origin. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on his constitutional claims based on qualified immunity.  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Students

  • Date:

    Mundy v. Bd. of Regents for Univ. of Wis. Sys. (W.D. Wis. Mar. 19, 2024)

    Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former graduate student in bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, twice sued the University after it became clear she would not successfully complete the requirements for a master’s degree. At the time, department officials proposed to move her from the “research track” to the “coursework track” and make exceptions to the coursework track requirements so that she could exit the program with a degree. Preferring the research track degree, plaintiff refused and sued for disability discrimination. After that action ended in summary judgment in favor of the University in January 2022, plaintiff demanded that the University immediately award her the coursework track degree with a graduation date of August 2020. When the department concluded she had not met the requirements for that degree, plaintiff sued again, this time alleging retaliation. In denying the University’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that although it was clear she had not satisfied the requirements for the degree, a reasonably jury could find that officials changed their stance of generosity toward plaintiff due to her first lawsuit.   

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Students

  • Date:

    Zapata v. Tex. Tech. Univ. (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a Fall 2021 graduate of the Ph.D. program in Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech University who is of Columbian national origin, brought discrimination, retaliation, and constitutional claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging that (1) his advisor yelled at him for speaking Spanish and required post-defense dissertation revisions delaying his graduation by two semesters; (2) officials enforced, but later waived, a two-publication requirement; (3) the Dean refused to make his girlfriend, who had joined the faculty, his hooding professor so he could propose marriage on stage; and (4) the University denied his post-graduation request for a non-thesis master’s degree. In dismissing his Title VI discrimination claim, the court found (1) that his factual assertions about actions officials took to move him toward graduation undercut his deliberate indifference claim, and (2) no assertion that a comparator who had already matriculated out requested and received a non-thesis master’s degree. In dismissing his Title VI retaliation claim, the court noted that by October 2021 when plaintiff filed his first grievance, he had satisfied all but the two-publication requirement, which the University then waived. It further found that plaintiff’s allegation that the Dean refused to let him propose marriage on stage was insufficient to allege a retaliatory University policy or deliberate indifference to retaliation. The court also found plaintiff’s equal protection and due process claims against individual officials barred by qualified immunity.   

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Students

  • Date:

    Dai v. Le (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2024)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff, a former graduate student and graduate assistant at Louisiana Tech University, brought constitutional and contract claims against multiple University officials after she received negative feedback on a public presentation and a low grade in a related class, was terminated from her assistantship, and resigned from the program when she was unable to form a dissertation committee. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants on her First Amendment retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit rejected her assertion that an email she sent to those who had attended her presentation attempting to clarify her research methodology was a matter of public concern, finding that she offered no evidence of a widespread debate in the community on the topic. Turning to her due process claim, the court found that (1) her property interest in her assistantship was not unqualified because her offer letter provided it could be terminated early for unsatisfactory performance and (2) the dean provided sufficient process on her complaint over the termination by reviewing the materials she submitted, her paper, and presentation materials, and by speaking with faculty members before upholding the termination. In affirming the lower court’s decision on her contract claim, the court noted that the decision that plaintiff was not making satisfactory progress was an academic decision to be reviewed deferentially.   

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Students

  • Date:

    Gradeless v. Kan. State Univ. (D. Kan. Oct. 6, 2023)

    Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Ross University of Veterinary Medicine in St. Kitts, West Indies, who was completing clinical rotations at Kansas State University (KSU) and who has a medical condition causing serious reactions to some anesthesia medications, brought discrimination claims against KSU after he was dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in three clinical rotation courses. The professors in one noted that he appeared to lack empathy, which plaintiff asserted was because the respirator he wore due to his condition made it difficult to see his facial expressions. In dismissing plaintiff’s claim for damages, the court found that he had not sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference because he had not established that any official overseeing his instructors with authority to address the alleged discrimination had actual knowledge of the discrimination. It permitted him to proceed, however, in his claim for injunction and declaratory relief, finding that although he does not seek to return to KSU, the poor grades and dismissal continue to damage his academic record.  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Students

  • Date:

    Aslani v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, brought Title IX and retaliation claims against the University after it dismissed her for unprofessional conduct related to two clinical clerkships. She received a grade of “unsatisfactory” for the first following multiple complaints about her behavior. The second followed a self-designed “coursework letter” under the supervision of a mentor not affiliated with the University. At the clerkship’s end, the mentor declined to complete the registrar’s evaluation, citing that he had never seen the coursework letter and plaintiff was not present in his office during the time outlined in the letter. Plaintiff, who created an email account in the mentor’s name to submit the coursework letter, asserted that she had actually completed the clerkship months earlier, that the mentor had harassed her sexually, and that her mother had left a voice message at the time with the University’s Office of Access and Equity to that effect. In granting summary judgment to the University on plaintiff’s Title IX claim, the court found that the University did not have substantial control over either the alleged harasser or the location of harassment. In dismissing her retaliation claim, the court further found that multiple instances of “‘unprofessional conduct’ interrupted any causal nexus between [her mother’s voice message] and the adverse action” and that plaintiff had offered no other evidence suggesting pretext.  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Doe v. Rowan Univ. (D. N.J. Oct. 10, 2023)

    Opinion denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a former graduate student at Rowan University, brought Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and a former professor after she twice failed required qualifying exams and was dismissed from the program. Plaintiff had previously failed a first-year research project and her master’s thesis defense. While the appeal of her dismissal was pending, she filed a Title IX complaint with the University, alleging that the professor, who was also a grader for the qualifying exams, had made unwanted advances two years earlier. In denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, the court found that she was unlikely to succeed on her discrimination claim since the University had her exam blindly re-scored by two new graders after she filed her Title IX complaint. It ruled she was unlikely to succeed on her Title IX retaliation claim due to the weak nexus between her rejection of the alleged advances and the program’s acts of placing her on academic probation and seeking to dismiss her, which both took place more than a year later.

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Students

NACUA Annual Conference

Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.

Register