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:
Hastings Coll. Conservation Comm. v. State of California (Cal. App. Oct. 15, 2025)
Opinion Affirming Order Sustaining a Demurrer Without Leave to Amend. Plaintiffs, the Hastings College Conservation Committee and several descendants of S.C. Hastings, sued the State of California and the board of the College of Law, San Francisco alleging that A.B. 1936, a state law that changed the college’s name and removed a requirement that reserved a board seat for an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings, violated various provisions of the California and U.S. Constitutions. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s order finding A. B. 1936 (1) was not a bill of attainder because it did not “inflict punishment” on the plaintiffs; (2) was not an ex post facto law because it was not a criminal statute, nor was it “‘so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State’s] intention’ to deem it ‘civil.’”; and (3) did not violate the California constitutional provision regarding collegiate freedom because the college’s board invited the change, and thus, it was not politically motivated.
Topics:
Contracts | Contracts Administration | Endowments & Gifts | Taxes & FinancesDate:
OFCCP Letter on Federal Contractor Executive Order Compliance (Jun. 27, 2025)
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued a letter to federal contractors seeking voluntary disclosures on Executive Order (EO) compliance. The letter states that pursuant to Executive Order14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” OFCCP “is no longer allowing federal contractors to engage in workforce balancing based on protected characteristics or requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to take ‘affirmative action.’” The letter requests that contractors “examine their previous affirmative action plans or efforts . . .[and] provide information demonstrating that they have discontinued these practices.” The letter provides examples of practices that contractors may consider in their voluntary submission, such as mandatory trainings, development programs, placement goals, ratings by diversity organizations, and mandated courses or programs with a focus on racial stereotypes. Instructions for submitting a voluntary disclosure are available through OFCCP’s Contractor Portal, and federal contractors have 90 days from the date of the letter to voluntarily disclose their compliance efforts.
Topics:
Contracts | Contracts Administration | Governance | Government Relations & Community Affairs
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.