Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Students for Justice in Palestine at the Univ. of Fla. v. Rodrigues (N.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2024)

    Order denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida, brought First Amendment claims against the Chancellor of the University of Florida System, the System’s Board of Governors, and the President of the University after the System Chancellor sent a memorandum to university presidents linking the group to the National SJP organization, which the memo asserted provided material support to foreign terrorist organizations, and directing that Florida chapters be deactivated. Despite public statements to the contrary by the Governor, plaintiff has not been deactivated. In denying the motion for preliminary injunction, the court held plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of establishing injury-in-fact. The court noted, first, that the University Board of Trustees (BOT), rather than the System’s Board of Governors, has the power to deactivate and that the BOT had taken no such action “following advice from outside counsel suggesting that deactivation would risk opening the BOT members to personal liability.” The court further found no evidence in the record of self-censorship or other objectively chilled speech, despite assertions of anxious feelings among plaintiff’s members. In a separate Order, the court similarly denied the motion for preliminary injunction in a parallel case brought by Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of South Florida.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Organizations | Students

  • Date:

    Thomas v. Coppin State Univ. (D. Md. Jan. 25, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, who was in his first year as a tenure-track assistant professor at Coppin State University, brought discrimination and due process claims against the University after he was placed on paid administrative leave and notified that his appointment would not be renewed after the University received multiple allegations of workplace hostility against him. Plaintiff alleged that a dean and colleagues had been dismissive of his back issues and other health concerns and that officials had not provided support when he sought assistance addressing disruptive student behavior in his classroom. In dismissing his hostile work environment claim, the court found plaintiff had alleged insufficient facts to plead a severe or pervasive hostile environment. In dismissing his due process claim, the court noted that he received a notice of nonrenewal rather than a termination and that he failed to establish a property interest in anything beyond his one-year term appointment.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process

  • Date:

    Denton v. Bd. of Governors for the State Univ. Sys. of Fla. (N.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2024)

    Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, students at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), on behalf of themselves and a putative class of “all Black students at FAMU at any time during the 2021/2022 school year through the date of class certification,” brought Title VI and the Equal Protection claims against the University and the State of Florida, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief only, alleging both intentional discrimination and a failure to dismantle patterns of discrimination dating to Florida’s system of de jure segregation before Brown v. Board of Education. In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, though the court noted differences in funding and graduation and retention rates, it held that plaintiffs’ alleged facts were insufficient to show that disparate State funding, including land-grant funding, and overlap or duplication of program offerings between FAMU and Florida’s other state universities were traceable to de jure segregation or intentional discrimination.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Porter v. Bd. of Trs. of N.C. State Univ. (U.S. Jan. 22, 2024)

    Order denying petition for certiorari. Plaintiff, a tenured professor in the College of Education at North Carolina State University, brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the University, University officials, and multiple colleagues after he was removed from a student advising role in the program and assigned an additional course to teach due to his lack of collegiality in criticizing efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the School and the field. Previously, the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that his comments to colleagues about department operations were unprotected and that he failed to establish a causal connection between a blog post attacking a professional association as “woke” and his removal, in part due to lack of temporal proximity. In its Order List, the Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Shannon v. The Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (C.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2024)

    Opinion granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a basketball player at the University of Illinois who was projected as an NBA lottery draft pick and who has significant income from a name, image, likeness (NIL) contract, brought Title IX and Due Process claims against the University after it suspended him from athletic activities following receipt of an arrest warrant related to a sexual assault he allegedly committed in Kansas. The Division of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA) suspended him pursuant to its policy permitting it to act “upon receipt of credible information that a student-athlete may have engaged in misconduct … [that], if substantiated, would constitute a Major Offense.” The court declined to order the University to apply its Title IX policy, finding that it did not have control over his Kansas trip, which was for personal social reasons, and that he had not alleged that the decision not to apply the policy was based on his gender. It granted plaintiff’s motion based on his due process claim, holding that (1) based on the terms of the University’s student conduct policy he had a property interest in not being suspended from the team without good cause, and (2) his projected draft pick status and his NIL deal made his occupational liberty interests more than speculative. It then held that he was likely to succeed on his claim that the University denied him due process when it suspended him from play under its DIA policy, which afforded fewer procedural protections than its general student conduct process. 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Haltigan v. Drake (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024)

    Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff holds a Ph.D. in psychology and is seeking employment in postsecondary psychology departments across the country. He brought First Amendment unconstitutional conditions and viewpoint discrimination claims against the University of California, Santa Cruz, challenging its Advancing Faculty Diversity program and the requirement that candidates submit a diversity statement for consideration for open faculty positions. He alleged that he did not apply for an open position because it would require him “to alter his behavior and remain silent … or recant his views to conform to the dictates of the University administration.” In granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the court held that plaintiff’s bare statement that he “desires a position at the University” was insufficient to allege that he was “able and ready” to apply in order to establish competitor standing. The court further found that plaintiff had alleged insufficient facts to show that his application would be futile.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    De Piero v. Pa. State Univ. (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former writing instructor at Penn State University’s Abington campus, brought discrimination and First Amendment retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after he complained publicly about required antiracism and educational equity trainings, and then resigned when he was issued a performance expectations notice for disrupting another training. In dismissing plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim, the court held that reduced performance evaluations and the performance expectations notice were insufficient to support his claim of constructive discharge. Though the court noted that “[t]raining on concepts such as ‘white privilege,’ ‘white fragility,’ implicit bias, or critical race theory can contribute positively to nuanced, important considerations about how to form a healthy and inclusive working environment,” it permitted his hostile work environment claim to proceed, finding that his detailed assertions regarding multiple trainings he was allegedly required to attend in which race was discussed “with a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language” were sufficient to allege pervasive harassment. In dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff’s challenges to the facilitators of the workshop for which he was issued a performance expectations notice were unprotected personal complaints rather than protected speech on matters of public concern.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Reid v. James Madison Univ. (4th Cir. Jan. 9, 2024)

    Opinion reversing dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiff, a former speech instructor and debate team coach at James Madison University, brought Title IX discrimination and due process claims against the University and multiple officials after an investigation found her responsible for having a nonconsensual relationship with a student, alleging various procedural departures from the University’s Title IX policies and procedures. The district court granted summary judgment to the University, finding plaintiff’s claims time-barred because she sued more than two years after her Dean found her responsible for the violation. In reversing and remanding for further proceedings, the Fourth Circuit held for the first time that a Title IX employment discrimination claim becomes complete and present and, thus, that the claim accrues when the University makes clear that a determination of a policy violation is its official position. It then found that information accompanying the Dean’s determination letter also provided her with a deadline for filing an appeal with the Provost and that the University did not otherwise make clear that the Dean’s decision was its official position. Accordingly, it held that plaintiff’s claim accrued only when the Provost upheld the determination of responsibility.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Ashford v. Univ. of Mich. (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2024)

    Opinion affirming denial of summary judgment. Plaintiff, an officer in the University of Michigan-Deaborn police department, brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the University, the Police Chief, and a University Vice Chancellor after he was suspended without pay for ten days for speaking with a newspaper reporter about what he felt was mishandling of a student’s sexual assault allegation against a professor. In affirming denial of summary judgment, the Sixth Circuit held that expungement of plaintiff’s disciplinary records is prospective relief not barred by sovereign immunity. In holding that plaintiff’s comments to the reporter were protected speech, the court found that they were not made pursuant to his ordinary duties, noting that he was hired as a general police officer, and was employed neither as a specialist in sex crimes nor as a liaison to media or the outside community. It further held that plaintiff’s right to speak on matters of public concern outside his ordinary duties was clearly established and that therefore, the University Police Chief and Vice Chancellor are not entitled to the protections of qualified immunity.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    Warman v. Mount St. Joseph Univ. (S.D. Ohio Jan. 3, 2024)

    Order granting-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Mount St. Joseph University who had been diagnosed with multiple disabilities, including depression, anxiety, and brain tumors, brought various civil rights and Fourth Amendment claims under §1983 and disability discrimination claims against the University and multiple officials after he was denied a religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Plaintiff also alleged that campus police had questioned him about his decision not to receive a vaccine. In dismissing plaintiff’s civil rights claims, the court found that the University officials who established the vaccination policy were private persons and employees of a private entity who neither acted in a public function nor exercised state coercive power. It ruled that plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against the campus police officer failed, finding that no seizure took place because a reasonable person in the circumstances alleged would have believed they were free to leave, and that the officers were, accordingly, entitled to qualified immunity. In dismissing his disability discrimination claim, the court noted that though he had submitted medical documentation indicating “a medical need to avoid taking COVID vaccines,” he had not alleged what condition gave rise to this need. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.   

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Coronavirus | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Fourth Amendment & Search and Seizure

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