Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
4/5/2024
Swender v. Garden City Cmty. Coll. (D. Kan. Mar. 29, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former president of Garden City Community College, brought contract and tort claims against the College and its outside counsel after a controversy involving a student protest at a Board of Trustees’ meeting led to the end of plaintiff’s formal employment relationship with the College. Following the Board meeting, on the advice of the College and outside counsel, plaintiff issued the students a No Trespass Order that was lifted when the students sued. After plaintiff and the College entered into a Separation Agreement, the College categorized him as an independent consultant in order to satisfy the “Continued Employment” clause of his original Employment Contract, which provided that he should still receive his full salary and benefits for the full term of his contract even if he ceased to be president. As an independent consultant, however, he was no longer eligible for certain retirement benefits. In permitting plaintiff’s contract claim to proceed against the College, the court found he had sufficiently alleged that the Separation Agreement incorporated the terms of the Employment Contract by reference, including its “Continued Employment” clause. It rejected the College’s Release Clause affirmative defense, finding that the clause released the College from claims arising from actions taken up to the time of the Settlement Agreement and that the alleged miscategorization occurred afterwards. The court found plaintiff’s malpractice claims against the College and its outside counsel related to their advice to issue the No Trespass Order were time-barred.
Topics:
Contracts | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Governance | Governing Boards & Administrators
Date:
3/29/2024
ACE Letter to ED re: Proposed Rule on NRC Program and FLAS Fellowship Program (Mar. 25, 2024)
Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 16 other higher education associations to the Department of Education on the Proposed Rule on the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship Program. The letter expresses support for the proposed definition of “diverse perspectives,” noting that it “will help clarify the requirement in Section 602 of the Higher Education Act that grants reflect ‘diverse perspectives’ as authorized by Congress.” It expresses concern that a new requirement that Centers have a geographically defined focus might adversely impact some Centers. It also urges the department not to eliminate the institutional payment component of the FLAS Fellowship Program in favor of one payment to the student, noting potential “negative impact on both the institution and the fellow, including higher tuition fees for the student and in some cases loss of health insurance.”
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Higher Education Act (HEA)
Date:
3/22/2024
Wortis v. Trs. of Tufts Coll. (Mass. Mar. 14, 2024)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiffs, eight tenured faculty at Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM), brought contract claims against the University when it reduced their salaries, full-time status, and lab space after they purportedly failed to meet the requirements of TUSM’s 2016, 2017, and 2019 compensation and lab space policies. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University, concluding that the compensation and lab space policies did not violate the academic freedom or economic security provisions of the University’s tenure documents. In reversing and remanding with respect to the compensation policies, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the meaning of the “economic security” provisions in the tenure documents is ambiguous and that “more evidence is required regarding the customs and practices and reasonable expectations related to salary and full-time status for tenured professors at TUSM, and even other universities and medical schools, to resolve the question whether the significant reductions … violated the economic security provided in the tenure documents.” It affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiffs’ claims regarding lab space, finding statements on academic freedom and economic security insufficient to support the claim that lab space was guaranteed.
Topics:
Contracts | Faculty & Staff | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Tenure
Date:
3/15/2024
Ware v. The Univ. of Vt. & State Agric. Coll. (D. Vt. Mar. 7, 2024)
Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, four current and former students at the University of Vermont brought Title IX, due process, contract, and negligence claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging both pre-assault and post-assault deliberate indifference. The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed in their campus-wide pre-assault deliberate indifference claim, finding they had sufficiently alleged that the University improperly relied on informal procedures, was insufficiently transparent, and regularly saw delays in case resolution. Though it dismissed their pre-assault claims related to specific team and club sports, Greek life in general, and repeat offenders, it found allegations that the University did not adequately supervise or deter students from attending parties hosted by derecognized fraternities sufficient for plaintiffs to proceed on deliberate indifference, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Turning to their post-assault claims, the court found various allegations of inadequate responses to reports of sexual assault, including assertions that (1) a mandatory reporter did not report an alleged assault to the Title IX office and (2) officials coordinated to encourage a complainant to choose an informal resolution process, were sufficient for plaintiffs to proceed on their post-assault deliberate indifference, due process, and contract claims. The court also found that assertions of pressure to forego a formal investigation, criticism in the athletics community, and withheld references and professional support were sufficient to allege Title IX retaliation.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Retaliation | Student Organizations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
12/15/2023
Edrich v. Dall. Coll. (N.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Executive Director of Human Resources at Brookhaven College, which was consolidated into Dallas College along with several other separately accredited colleges, brought discrimination and contract claims against Dallas College after she was reassigned to a new role during a transitional phase and then not hired for any of the new positions in the final phase of the consolidation. In granting summary judgment to the College on her contract claims, the court held that plaintiff’s assertion that she had been demoted when the College reassigned her failed because her month-to-month employment contract referred to her only as an administrator and she continued to receive the same salary after her the reassignment. In granting summary judgment to the College on her race and age discrimination claims, the court found that plaintiff failed to point to any evidence showing that the College’s assertion that it sought to hire the most qualified candidates was pretextual.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
10/27/2023
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
Date:
10/20/2023
The Pa. State Univ. v. Alpha Upsilon of the Fraternity of Beta Theta Pi, Inc., (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2023)
Order affirming judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, The Pennsylvania State University, sued Alpha Upsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (Fraternity) for specific performance to exercise its right to repurchase a parcel of property after the Fraternity was suspended. In 1894, the University conveyed land to the Fraternity to construct a chapter house for use by active members. In 1928, the University repurchased the first parcel, and conveyed a second parcel for the same purpose via the “1928 Deed.” The 1928 Deed preserved the University’s right to repurchase, should the Fraternity cease to operate a house, occupied by active members. In 2017, after a member died from alcohol-related hazing activity, the Fraternity was suspended by its national organization, and the University required tenets to vacate the chapter house. The University investigated the alleged hazing and then revoked its recognition of the Fraternity for five years. Thereafter, the Fraternity refused to resell the property to the University, which sued. After the University prevailed in the trial court, the Fraternity appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the mere potential of future recolonization and occupancy of the property by an alum’s non-member child did not constitute use under the 1928 Deed, thus triggering the University’s right to purchase the Property.
Topics:
Contracts | Contracts Administration | Hazing | Real Property, Facilities & Construction | Student Organizations | Students
Date:
10/6/2023
Settlement Agreement between U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Stanford University (Sep. 29, 2023)
Settlement Agreement between Stanford University and the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, and National Science Foundation. The Agreement resolves allegations that the University did not make required disclosures of foreign support to 11 professors who were principal investigators (PI) or co-PIs on research grant proposals. Pursuant to the Agreement, the University will pay $1,938,682 and cooperate with the Government’s investigation of individuals and entities not released by the Agreement.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research
Date:
9/22/2023
Helmig v. Univ. of Colo. Bd. of Regents (D. Colo. Sep.12, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former researcher on a limited appointment at the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research who also had an independent consulting business, brought due process and contract claims against the Board of Regents, Institute Officials, and various University compliance and audit officials after he was terminated when an investigation found violations of the University’s conflicts of interest policy. Plaintiff alleged that the investigative report contained inaccurate and misleading statements that damaged his professional opportunities. In permitting plaintiff to proceed on (1) his due process claims against various Institute and compliance and audit officials, and (2) his contract claims against the Board, the court found he had sufficiently alleged a property interest in his continued employment based on his limited appointment and University policies about termination of faculty members for cause. It dismissed his due process claims against the various officials for alleged inaccuracies in the investigated report on grounds of qualified immunity. It also dismissed his claims against the Regents in their individual capacities for want of factual allegations demonstrating their personal involvement.
Topics:
Conflict of Interest | Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Due Process | Research
Date:
8/4/2023
Pearson Foundation, et al. v. The Univ. of Chi. (N.D. Okla. July 31, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, two foundations and one benefactor who had committed $100 million to the University of Chicago to establish a named Institute with related programming, brought contract and fraudulent inducement claims against the University following disputes regarding Institute staffing and programing. The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed on their claim related to faculty hires, finding that although the Grant Agreement provided plaintiffs no “role or authority with respect to making appointments,” the University is nevertheless obligated to use the grant for purposes consistent with the Institute’s stated mission. The court also permitted plaintiffs to proceed on their fraudulent inducement claim alleging that the University misrepresented the extent to which it would contribute funding for salaries and student support rather than operate the Institute as a standalone entity on a perpetual basis. It dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that the University did not develop the agreed upon curriculum, finding that language in recitals stating that the Grant would be used to “create educational programs” did not preclude the University from offering existing courses through the Institute, noting that the operative language merely required the University to offer a specified number of courses.
Topics:
Contracts | Endowments & Gifts | Taxes & Finances

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.