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:
Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. Apr. 27, 2023)
Opinion vacating and remanding for dismissal. Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods (SBN) challenged a plan by the University of California, Berkeley to construct new residential and academic space and to expand its enrollment, asserting that the University’s review of the plan’s environmental impact did not meet the requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The trial court granted a writ of mandate ordering the University to decertify its Supplemental Environmental Impact Review (SEIR), void the construction plan, and suspend further increases to enrollments, and the California Supreme Court declined to review or stay the writ. California then passed Senate Bill 118 shifting the focus of the CEQA from enrollment to campus population and limiting the remedies available if a court finds an impact review deficient. The Regents also certified a new Environmental Impact Review. On appeal, the California Court of Appeals held that Senate Bill 118 and the new EIR mooted SBN’s challenge.
Topics:
Construction Projects & Contracts | Contracts
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.