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:
Scruggs v. Grand Canyon Univ. (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Grand Canyon University who suffers from a weakened immune system and other complications as a result of childhood cancer treatments, brought discrimination, contract, and unfair trade practices claims against the University after she was dismissed from the program when she failed a required course for not submitting forms to extend her excused absences when complications from a strep infection further delayed her return to school. Her disability discrimination claim failed because plaintiff had not notified the University of her underlying weakened immunity or other complications. The court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that the medical documentation policy was confusing, noting that she was familiar with the University’s absence policy and used it to her benefit in the past. Her breach of contract claim related to the University’s nondiscrimination policy failed because her alleged injuries were redressable under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Her unfair trade practices claim failed because she provided no evidence that the University had represented to her that her nursing credits would be transferable to another nursing program.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & DiversityDate:
Bennett v. Hurley Med. Ctr. (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023)
Opinion affirming Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff, a nursing student at the University of Michigan-Flint and clinical intern during Fall 2020 at the Hurley Medical Center who had a history of panic attacks, brought disability discrimination claims against the Center because it withdrew permission for her to have her service dog accompany her on clinical rotations on patient floors after patients and staff had allergic reactions caused by his presence. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the Center, the Sixth Circuit held that plaintiff’s intentional discrimination claim failed because she did not show that the hospital’s decision was motivated by anything other than the allergic reactions, which posed a direct threat to the health and safety of patients. Turning to her failure to accommodate claim, the court found that (1) accommodations necessary to permit the dog’s presence on patient floors, such as screening all patients for allergies, moving patients to other non-specialized floors, and reassigning staff during the COVID-19 pandemic, were not reasonable and (2) the Center repeatedly consulted with medical experts on the feasibility of each of plaintiff’s suggested accommodations and reasonably offered to permit the dog to be present in a crate on a separate floor, and was willing to consider permitting the dog to accompany plaintiff wearing a Shed Defender but plaintiff failed to follow up on procuring the garment for Pistol.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Service & Support AnimalsDate:
Pepper v. Brown Univ. (D. R.I. Nov. 2, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, pro se, a former food service employee at Brown University who was diagnosed with ADHD, which he asserted included sensitivity to sounds and hypervigilance, brought disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after he was fired for violently assaulting a co-worker. The co-worker admitted to managers that he had previously antagonized plaintiff by sneaking up on him and making loud noises. Prior to the unprovoked assault, the University admonished the co-worker, took steps to limit his interactions with plaintiff, and began a process to find plaintiff a new work location on campus. In granting summary judgment to the University on his hostile work environment claim, the court found that plaintiff offered no evidence of disability-based discriminatory animus, noting that the co-worked had no knowledge of plaintiff’s ADHD. Turning to his failure to accommodate claim, the court found that (1) plaintiff had produced insufficient evidence that his ADHD caused a substantial limitation of a major life activity; (2) he was not an otherwise qualified individual because compliance with the University’s Workplace Violence Policy was an essential job function; and (3) the University took steps to stop the inappropriate behavior and provided him with information on the accommodations process, but that plaintiff himself had not yet provided necessary documentation. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed because he provided no evidence of continued harassment after he initially complained to managers about the co-worker’s behavior.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | RetaliationDate:
Florance v. Barnett (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023)
Order affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former Indiana University School of Medicine student, brought due process claims against multiple University officials related to student loan collections. Plaintiff took a student loan through a program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Later, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), rated him as having a permanent and total disability. As he appeared to be gainfully employed and did not meet the statutory requirements for cancelation, the University declined to recommend cancelation of the loan and initiated collections proceedings against him. After plaintiff disputed HHS’s initial denial of his request for cancelation, HHS canceled his loan, and the University dismissed the collections case. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, the Seventh Circuit held that he did not have a protected interest in loan cancellation since under the HHS loan program whether a borrower qualifies for cancelation due to a disability is a discretionary determination left to HHS, not an entitlement determined by the VA’s disability rating.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students
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.