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:
Fizulich v. Killings (N.D. N.Y. July 20, 2023)
Memorandum-Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student-athlete at the State University of New York at Albany who is white, brought tort claims against the University’s basketball coach, who is African American, and discrimination and contract claims against the University in the wake of an incident in which he alleges the coach assaulted him in the locker room during an away game. Plaintiff alleges that the University disciplined and planned to terminate the coach, but later reversed the termination decision following community pressure, which plaintiff alleged resulted in his constructive termination from the team. The court permitted plaintiff’s Title VI discrimination claim to proceed, finding his factual allegations sufficient to support a plausible inference of discrimination. The court, however, held that plaintiff’s contract claim, which asserted that the University did not offer him the protective measures provided for in its Violence Policy, was barred by sovereign immunity.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | 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:
Bennett v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist. (N.D. Tex. July 5, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Executive Vice President for Advancement with the Tarrant County College District (TCCD), brought retaliation and contract claims against TCCD after its then-Chancellor placed her on an executive development plan and declined to renew her contract following her decision to counsel a subordinate employee related to a workplace conflict. Plaintiff offered, but attempted to withdraw her resignation and was subsequently placed on administrative leave after she filed an internal grievance against the Chancellor. Prior to her last day, she also filed discrimination and retaliation charges with the Texas Workforce Commission and the EEOC. The court permitted plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim to proceed, finding sufficient temporal proximity between her EEOC charge and TCCD’s refusal to permit her to withdraw her resignation. The court, however, dismissed her contract claims, holding that (1) that TCCD’s policies against discrimination and retaliation do not create a contractual right where Title VII is the exclusive remedy, (2) that its policies did not specifically and expressly limit its ability to terminate at-will employees, and (3) that plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded a violation of TCCD’s “Freedom from Reprisals” policy because counseling her subordinate was not a “complaint” within the meaning of the policy.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
Vazquez v. Rider Univ. (N.J. Super. App. Div. June 29, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiffs, multiple stakeholders from the former Westminster Choir College, in consolidated cases, sued Rider University to prevent the sale of the Choir College or its relocation from its Princeton campus to Rider’s Lawrenceville campus. In 1991, Westminster merged with Rider University. In 2018, after announcing significant financial need, Rider announced a plan to sell the College to a for-profit Chinese Education Technology Company, though the deal fell through. Rider subsequently moved the College to its Lawrenceville campus. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, finding that under the terms of the Merger Agreement plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce Rider’s obligations under that Agreement. The Appellate Division reversed as to a group of students and faculty of the Choir College, finding (1) that they were third-party beneficiaries of the Merger Agreement and (2) that they had sufficiently alleged that Rider acted arbitrarily and in bad faith in its proposed sale of the College to a company not qualified to run the College to gain contractual standing to sue.
Topics:
Contracts | Financial Exigency & Institutional Merger & Closure | Governance | Real Estate Transactions | Real Property, Facilities & Construction
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.