FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Steshenko v. Foothill-De Anza Cmty. Coll. Dist. (Cal. App. July 26, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the College. Plaintiff, a former student in the medical laboratory technician (MLT) program at De Anza College who is over 50, brought age discrimination, contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the College after he was unable to secure a clinical externship as required for graduation and licensure. Three sites declined to hire him, and he refused to consider sites he deemed to require a prohibitive commute. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the College on his state-law age discrimination claim, the California Court of Appeals held that the MLT program was an educational program to prepare plaintiff for employment rather than a training program leading to employment. His contract claim failed because he failed to show either (1) the College’s contracts with its clinical placement sites were included in his contract, or (2) the College breached its contractual relation with him. His IIED claim failed because, while he alleged the College could have done more to assist him in securing an externship with one of his preferred sites, he presented no evidence that the College acted in an extreme or outrageous manner.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | StudentsDate:
Rogoff v. Long Island Univ. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 6, 2023)
Decision/Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of business and former dean of the Brooklyn School of Business at Long Island University, brought contract, age discrimination, and retaliation claims against the University after it declined to renew his administrative contract and reduced his salary to that of a full professor. The University also changed his status to adjunct faculty with loss of benefits after he presented a University Trustee with a “memo of concerns” critical of the University’s administration, though it later revoked the decision. The court awarded summary judgment to the University on plaintiff’s contract claim, holding that a contract provision referencing “other terms and conditions of employment … in accordance with University policy,” without more, was insufficient to support his expectation of a sabbatical year and salary of at least 75% of his prior administrative salary. It permitted him to proceed on his age discrimination and retaliation claims with respect to his demotion to adjunct status, finding conflicting pre-trial testimony and the temporal proximity between his “memo of concerns” and his demotion sufficient to raise triable issues of fact.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
Palmer v. Liberty Univ. (4th Cir. June 30, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former studio art professor at Liberty University who was 79 at the time, brought an age discrimination claim against the University after it declined to renew her contract, citing increased demand for digital arts course offerings. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Fourth Circuit held, first, that two comments made by University officials suggesting that plaintiff might wish to characterize her departure as a retirement were not direct evidence of discrimination because they were made only after the decision not to renew her contract. It similarly held that a comment that plaintiff seemed “resistant to change” did not support an inference of discrimination because her Chair and Dean had both informed her multiple times over a two-year period that she needed to improve her technology and digital art skills, which she took no steps to do. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff’s prima facie case failed because she had not demonstrated she had met the University’s legitimate expectations. Finally, having resolved the statutory issue in favor of the University, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of the University’s assertion of the First Amendment “ministerial exception” defense, citing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & DiversityDate:
Kaczmarek v. D’Youville Coll. (W.D. N.Y. June 26, 2023)
Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former professor of education and part-time archivist at D’Youville College who is a member of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart and worked at the College since 1981, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College after it eliminated her positions citing declining enrollments. Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim failed because she failed to show that the College’s asserted enrollment decreases in its Education Department programs were pretextual or that decisions she alleged the College made to bring about those decreases were made with the intent to discriminate against her. The court, however, denied summary judgment on her claim as to her archivist position, finding a material question as to how the cited enrollment declines affected the archivist position housed in the library and a factual dispute as to whether a College official ever stated “the nun has to go.” Her claim that the College retaliated against her when it did not investigate her complaints to the Board of Trustees about her termination failed because those complaints were subsequent to her termination and did not inhibit her from filing a claim with the State Division of Human Rights.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation
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.