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:
Florance v. Barnett (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023)
Order affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former Indiana University School of Medicine student, brought due process claims against multiple University officials related to student loan collections. Plaintiff took a student loan through a program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Later, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), rated him as having a permanent and total disability. As he appeared to be gainfully employed and did not meet the statutory requirements for cancelation, the University declined to recommend cancelation of the loan and initiated collections proceedings against him. After plaintiff disputed HHS’s initial denial of his request for cancelation, HHS canceled his loan, and the University dismissed the collections case. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, the Seventh Circuit held that he did not have a protected interest in loan cancellation since under the HHS loan program whether a borrower qualifies for cancelation due to a disability is a discretionary determination left to HHS, not an entitlement determined by the VA’s disability rating.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
Medina v. Univ. of Utah (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023)
Order and Judgment affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, the director of BioKids, the University of Utah School of Biological Sciences (SBS) childcare center, brought procedural due process, contract, and state-law retaliation claims against the SBS Director and the University after her employment was (1) terminated through a Reduction in Force (RIF) when the School transferred management of BioKids to the University’s Center for Child & Family Resources as operational needs changed during the coronavirus pandemic, and then (2) reinstated when the arrangement expired. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Tenth Circuit held that plaintiff waived her procedural due process claim by not exercising her appeal rights under the University’s RIF policy. Her breach of contract claim failed because the RIF policy under which she was terminated was itself a part of her employment contract with the University. Her state-law retaliation claim failed because (1) rather than expressing concern that a planned expansion in BioKids’ capacity would violate state licensing requirements she succeeded in securing a variance from the Utah Department of Health to maintain the center’s compliance, and (2) she pointed to no evidence suggesting that she made a good faith report to the University that she anticipated any regulatory violation.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Due Process | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff
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.