Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
11/15/2024
Hodge v. Spalding Univ. (W.D. Ky. Nov. 7, 2024)
Memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, former members of the women’s volleyball team at Spalding University brought claims of negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, willful and wanton disregard for player safety and well-being, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages alleging they experienced bullying from their teammates while on the volleyball team, and their coach contributed toward the bullying and retaliated against plaintiffs when they complained of the bullying. One plaintiff also brought claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs allege they were both kicked off the team following concerns for their mental health due to the alleged bullying from other members on the team. In finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims of negligence, the court found that based on the allegations that a coach (1) disclosed plaintiff’s confidential, personal information by sharing that she took time off for her mental health, and (2) forced the student to perform sprints despite her known hip injury, plausibly breached the duty of ordinary care. In allowing plaintiffs’ NIED claims to proceed, the court credited plaintiffs’ allegations that they experienced “emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish” from the claimed bullying by their teammates, which the coach purportedly disregarded. Based on its finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged gross negligence and NIED claims, the court determined that a jury could award punitive damages at a trial. However, the court dismissed the claims of negligent hiring and supervision finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the coach was unfit for the job at the time of hire or how her supervisors were aware of the alleged wrongdoing when it transpired. It also dismissed claims for willful and wanton disregard finding there was not an “entire absence of care” and that plaintiffs were unable to establish intentional, reckless, outrageous, or intolerable actions by the coach necessary to sustain a claim for IIED. Finally, the court allowed the single plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination and retaliation to proceed finding the coach’s alleged decision to prohibit the student from playing for an entire season after being informed of her mental health diagnosis constitutes a “denial of [plaintiff one’s] opportunity … to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of [the university]” on the basis of her diagnosed anxiety.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
11/8/2024
Hight v. Univ. of Chi. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2024)
Memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former medical student at the University of Chicago brought disability discrimination claims against the University alleging violations of the ADA and refusal to accommodate under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He also brought claims for breach of tuition contract under Illinois law. Plaintiff had multiple disabilities that were recognized by the University for which he received reasonable accommodations, such as extra time and breaks when he took exams. During the program, he took a one-year medical leave following a professionalism concern report due to his absences and being placed on academic probation. Upon his return, he was moved from academic probation to monitored academic status and remained on that status until he was dismissed from the program. Prior to his dismissal, plaintiff alleged he began taking a new medication that inhibited his ability to control his actions, which included creating an email account under the name of another student and using the account to send evaluations and feedback to one of his professors. In response, a disciplinary proceeding was conducted that dismissed plaintiff for (1) repeated unprofessional behavior; (2) the egregious nature of the final professionalism complaint; (3) unprofessional behavior while on monitored academic status; and (4) significant and sustained academic performance deficiencies. Plaintiff appealed the decision in a timely manner, but allegedly was not given the ten-day response time outlined in the University’s policy. Plaintiff claimed that the incidents leading to his dismissal resulted from or were exacerbated by his disability and that there was no evidence supporting a finding of academic problems following his return from his leave of absence. In finding that plaintiff plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title III of the ADA, the court found (1) there was no dispute as to whether plaintiff had a disability as he was already receiving accommodations; (2) plaintiff sufficiently alleged he is able to complete his studies and comply with the requirements of the program with reasonable accommodations through his move from academic probation to monitored academic status; and (3) the events that the University characterized as “unprofessional conduct” leading to his dismissal, could be traceable to his disability and might have been accommodated. However, the court found that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead all three elements of a refusal to accommodate claim under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act and dismissed the claims, without prejudice. Further, the court dismissed part of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim because Illinois law does not recognize a contractual obligation arising from a party’s preexisting legal obligations. However, the court held that plaintiff did plead sufficient facts to establish an implied contract through the procedural protections articulated in the University’s guidelines regarding disciplinary proceedings, specifically how the University did not abide by the ten-day appeal timeline.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
11/8/2024
Kammerer v. Univ. of Kan. (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former professor at the University of Kansas brought FMLA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the University and his former supervisors alleging they unlawfully interfered with his right to use his FMLA leave and discriminated and retaliated against him for using that leave. Plaintiff also claimed the University discriminated and retaliated against him because of his disability. Previously, plaintiff suffered a back injury that required accommodation. He agreed to change his work responsibilities per the suggestion of the Executive Associate Dean who was responsible for considering his request. Although plaintiff alleged he was assured that the change was not a new contract, he alleged that the University required him to accept a pay reduction of $19,000 as a condition of the accommodation. Later, he sought FMLA leave for needed surgery. Following his return to work, plaintiff alleged his supervisors declined him the opportunity to apply for a promotion and promoted another less-qualified employee. He further alleged he faced a course load that was three times the load of his colleagues and was refused additional compensation for that higher course load. Finally, he claimed that he was prohibited from inviting guest speakers or being awarded monetary grants. After filing a conciliation notice with the University, he was placed on administrative leave until his contract expired and then, notified that his contract would not be renewed. The court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FMLA claims as they were brought against his supervisors in their individual capacities, and as such, they are not “employers” governed by FMLA, declining to follow the rule of the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits. In permitting plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claims to proceed, the court reasoned that plaintiff alleged several injuries that would support an award of economic damages, even though they may not arise from breach of contract, per se.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation
Date:
10/25/2024
Saavedra v. Lehigh Carbon Cmty. Coll. (E.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2024)
Opinion denying Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Lehigh Carbon Community College who identifies as a person with Autism, brought disability discrimination, equal protection, retaliation, and denial of due process claims against the College. Plaintiff alleged the College denied his accommodations, including extended time on exams and reduced distraction environment, and also “intimidat[ed]” him into forgoing a right to a hearing following a charge of an academic integrity violation. Although he received accommodations during the spring semester, plaintiff alleged that the College failed to implement corresponding accommodations for the summer term, which prompted him to have his mother scribe his summer course midterm exam scratchwork for him after he became fatigued while taking the test. Afterwards, plaintiff was charged with an academic integrity violation, for which he sought a hearing and retained counsel but claims that he was “threatened” when the dean of the college stated “most of the cases like yours ending in a hearing will finish with bad outcomes, and there is no need to go through the whole process,” which prompted plaintiff to forfeit the hearing and permit the violation to stand. The court permitted the disability discrimination claim to proceed, finding that plaintiff’s allegation that the College refused to implement any accommodation “in it of itself” sufficed to state a claim, and that the College’s defense targeted the academic dishonesty violation but failed to take into account plaintiff’s claim that the institution had knowledge that his rights were “substantially likely to be violated” in light of plaintiff’s prior accommodations, and requests for similar accommodations for the summer semester. The court also allowed the retaliation claim to move forward, finding the dean’s alleged statement to plaintiff was an adverse action sufficient to deter a person from exercising their rights, when considering plaintiff’s Autism and the vulnerability the disability exposed him to. Finally, the court found that the College’s motion did not address plaintiff’s equal protection claim and rejected the defense that the charge of academic dishonesty did not give rise to a claim for substantive due process absent either suspension or expulsion.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection
Date:
10/4/2024
Thiry v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich. (E.D. Mich. Sep. 27, 2024)
Opinion & Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Michigan with a substance-use disorder brought claims of discrimination and retaliation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act) and unlawful restrictions of protected activity and retaliation under the First Amendment against the University and three of its employees. Plaintiff sought in-patient treatment for substance-use disorder and alleged that upon his return to work his supervisor created a hostile work environment by making derogatory comments about his disorder, publicly berating him, and disclosing confidential information about his treatment. Plaintiff sent a series of communications to his supervisor, including some texts and emails outside of working hours, and the University held an internal mediation between the parties in which plaintiff was admonished to constrain future communications to work related topics sent during working hours. The communications continued and plaintiff received a two-day disciplinary layoff for “Negligent Careless Work Performance” about which he filed a grievance. Plaintiff was placed on paid suspension pending an investigation into his conduct, the University held a Disciplinary Review Conference (DRC), and plaintiff was terminated. Thereafter, plaintiff sought and was granted the opportunity to retire in lieu of termination, and signed a Settlement Agreement and Release of Liability stating among other things that he would forgo “further claims, demands, or actions related to the DRC” and his grievance about the two-day layoff. Despite signing the Agreement, plaintiff filed suit. The court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages related to the Rehab Act claim, as well as the Rehab Act claims against the individual defendants, and for the University on plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims for money damages, but denied the motion as to individual defendants, reasoning that “official-capacity claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment where a plaintiff seeks only prospective equitable relief.” The court found that while the plain language of the Agreement precluded claims pertaining to the DRC and suspension, a material factual dispute remained regarding whether the Agreement prohibited plaintiff’s broader claims related to discrimination under the Rehab Act, as well as Section 1983 claims for money damages from individual defendants, and for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation
Date:
9/27/2024
Office for Civil Rights Releases New Resources on Students with Disabilities (Sep. 24, 2024)
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued four new resource documents regarding the rights of students with anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and eating disorders, and the corresponding responsibilities of institutions to accommodate these potentially disabling conditions under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity
Date:
9/13/2024
Santa Maria v. Loyola Univ. of Chi. Stritch Sch. of Med. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 9, 2024)
Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former medical student at Loyola University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, who suffers from depression, anxiety, and ADHD brought claims of disability discrimination, retaliation, breach of implied contract, IIED, and negligence against the University and The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), after she failed a required exam three times, and was dismissed from the program. After a successful administrative appeal, Plaintiff was reinstated at the University with conditions to ensure she passed the exam during a subsequent attempt. Prior to retaking the exam, Plaintiff sought and received accommodations from NBME, about which she notified the University. Plaintiff alleges that as part of her reinstatement the University agreed to set up an eight-week study period and monthly meetings with the Dean to help her prepare to retake the exam, but that these supports were either only partially provided or were not provided in a timely manner, which meant that she could not utilize the NBME’s accommodation allowing her to space the two modules of the exam out by 14 days, causing her to fail the exam, and leading to a second dismissal for failure to complete the terms of her readmission. The court declined to dismiss the discrimination claims, reasoning that based upon the language of the reenrollment letter, the University recognized Plaintiff as a well-performing student except for when her disabilities presented challenges, and that if Plaintiff had no disability, she would not have failed her exams, and the University would not have offered reenrollment on specified terms. The court permitted Plaintiff’s contract claim to proceed, stating that the University “cannot use [the provision requiring plaintiff to pass the exam on her first attempt] to argue that [plaintiff] failed to perform an obligation it could not require her to fulfill.” The court dismissed Plaintiff’s negligence claim as duplicative of her claim for breach of contract, and her IIED claim reasoning that she failed to demonstrate that the University’s actions were “extreme and outrageous.”
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation
Date:
9/6/2024
Schultz v. Lewis & Clark Coll. (D. Or. Sep. 4, 2024)
Opinion and Order Granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former art therapy graduate student at Lewis & Clark College brought claims for breach of contract and violation of the ADA, and Rehabilitation Act against the College after she was dismissed from the program in Spring 2020 due to poor academic performance. Although plaintiff claimed she would have successfully completed the program had the College granted her accommodation requests, the court dismissed her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, finding that since plaintiff did not show any intention to return to the College, she lacked standing to assert an ADA claim, and that she further failed to identify any additional reasonable accommodation the College might have offered her. The court found that a factual dispute prohibited resolution of plaintiff’s claim for breach of a contractual promise to keep her disability “private and confidential,” since on the one hand plaintiff claimed she was required to present her artwork for “public shaming” and to write a paper on her disabilities and its impact on others, while on the other the College averred that she was neither required to disclose nor discuss her disabilities with the Academic Review Panel or her classmates.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity
Date:
8/30/2024
Hoffman v. City Univ. of N.Y. (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024)
Order adopting Report and Recommendation to deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Instructor librarian at the City College of New York, which is a constituent of the City University of New York (CUNY) brought a disability discrimination claim against CUNY after it denied him accommodations and terminated his employment. Plaintiff alleged that he had requested a one-year extension to complete his second Masters degree to accommodate for his depression but was denied because he previously was granted a one-year extension and “instructors who do not reach prescribed academic goals are no longer eligible for employment after their fifth year in an Instructorship position.” In adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and denying CUNY’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that there is genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the five-year term is an essential part of the Instructor librarian position. The court agreed that the prior grant of a one-year extension demonstrates that the five-year limit may not be as essential as CUNY alleged. Further, the court found that plaintiff’s accommodation request is “facially reasonable” and permits him to perform the job at the same level as a non-disabled employee.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity
Date:
8/30/2024
Zhang v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (M.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2024)
Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former tenured faculty member at the University of Georgia, who identifies her race as Asian and her national origin as Chinese, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University based on race, national origin, and disability. Plaintiff alleged she received biased treatment based on her race and national origin and was frequently dismissed after reporting a discriminatory work environment. Plaintiff further alleged she was denied reasonable accommodations and was terminated after her accommodation requests were denied. In dismissing the University’s Motion to Dismiss, the court found plaintiff’s allegations that University officials treated her less favorably than her white instructor counterparts and replaced her with a white man who was unqualified for the position were sufficient to support an inference of intentional race or national origin discrimination. Additionally, the court found that plaintiff’s continued complaints about alleged bias treatment (disparate discipline, denial of a teaching assistant, and denial of the opportunity to vote on a tenure candidate) from 2020 until her termination in 2023 were sufficient to support an inference of intentional retaliation from her department superiors.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

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.