Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
12/1/2023
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, & Diversity
Date:
11/17/2023
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 Animals
Date:
11/10/2023
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 | Retaliation
Date:
10/27/2023
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
Date:
10/13/2023
Gradeless v. Kan. State Univ. (D. Kan. Oct. 6, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Ross University of Veterinary Medicine in St. Kitts, West Indies, who was completing clinical rotations at Kansas State University (KSU) and who has a medical condition causing serious reactions to some anesthesia medications, brought discrimination claims against KSU after he was dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in three clinical rotation courses. The professors in one noted that he appeared to lack empathy, which plaintiff asserted was because the respirator he wore due to his condition made it difficult to see his facial expressions. In dismissing plaintiff’s claim for damages, the court found that he had not sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference because he had not established that any official overseeing his instructors with authority to address the alleged discrimination had actual knowledge of the discrimination. It permitted him to proceed, however, in his claim for injunction and declaratory relief, finding that although he does not seek to return to KSU, the poor grades and dismissal continue to damage his academic record.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Students
Date:
10/13/2023
Narayanan v. Midwestern State Univ. (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2023)
Opinion partially vacating summary judgment in favor of the University and remanding. Plaintiff is a former tenured associate professor at Midwestern State University who is of Malaysian national origin. In 2018, after settling a national origin discrimination suit against the University, he did not receive a requested summer teaching assignment. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy while presenting at a conference in Malaysia and was unable to return to the United States for several semesters. Leading up to his termination, the University’s Director of Disability Support Services engaged in an extensive interactive process with plaintiff, offering multiple accommodations, including additional leave, “unless such accommodation would have undue hardship on the functioning of the department or university.” When plaintiff again did not report to teach assigned classes, the University cancelled his employment contract and revoked his tenure. Plaintiff brought failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation claims against the University. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on his failure to accommodate claim, finding his indefinite leave of absence request without a return date was an undue hardship. It vacated summary judgment and remanded on his Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, finding that (1) lost income from summer teaching may qualify as an adverse employment action and (2) although that loss was not an ultimate employment decision, it was sufficient to dissuade a reasonable person from opposing unlawful discrimination.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation
Date:
10/6/2023
ACE Comment Letter to DOJ re: Website Accessibility NPRM (Oct. 3, 2023)
Comment Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 23 other higher education associations to the Department of Justice on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities.” While expressing support for the objectives of online accessibility, the comment letter identifies concerns with the NPRM’s two-year timeframe for establishing compliance, its criteria for determining which entities are large or small, the limited benefit of an exception for password-protected web content for which no student with a declared disability is registered, and high compliance costs for institutions of higher education.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Technology | Technology Accessibility
Date:
10/6/2023
ACE Comment Letter on DOL/IRS/HHS NPRM on Requirements Related to the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (Oct. 4, 2023)
Comment Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 18 other higher education associations to the Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service, and Health and Human Services on their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on “Requirements Related to the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.” Noting that emergency waivers instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic to permit interstate care via telehealth have now expired, the letter encourages the regulating agencies to “find ways within their authority to support provision of behavioral health services to students enrolled in higher education institutions,” including via telehealth services, and to recommend to Congress that it fund measures to address student mental health and authorize the interstate provision of behavioral telehealth services for students enrolled in postsecondary institutions.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Distressed & Suicidal Students | Students
Date:
10/6/2023
Loreto v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Sep. 07, 2023)
Report and Recommendation granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, an employee of the University of Arizona, brought disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and her former supervisor after she resigned her position and the University contested her application for unemployment compensation. Plaintiff, who was subsequently rehired for a new position, alleged that when she needed frequent restroom breaks as she recovered from a recent surgery, her supervisor denied her request for a temporary exemption from a restroom preapproval policy and delayed approval of her individual requests for restroom breaks. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding them time-barred. Turning to her retaliation claim, the Magistrate Judge found that the portion of her claim related to the University’s opposition to her unemployment compensation was timely, that this opposition was an adverse action, and that it was sufficiently close in time to her request for restroom accommodations to allege causation.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
10/6/2023
Wu v. Ma (D. Mass. Sep. 28, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student from China at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) who had been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, brought disability discrimination, tort, and contract claims against WPI after it processed an administrative withdrawal and terminated her student visa. While enrolled, plaintiff was hospitalized first for a serious suicide attempt and, two months later, again following expressions of suicidal thoughts. Plaintiff also alleged that a fellow Ph.D. student subjected her to emotional manipulation and spread rumors about her among peers and research supervisors. In granting WPI’s motion to dismiss her disability discrimination claims, the court found her allegation that WPI was inflexible with its leave of absence policy was vague, noting that plaintiff also alleged she had declined an offer of a reduced academic load after her first hospitalization. Turning to her claim that WPI was negligent in not protecting her from her fellow student’s conduct, the court declined to find such a duty, noting that (1) plaintiff was a graduate student and an adult “in all respects under the law,” and (2) WPI did not have notice of the alleged conduct to trigger a special duty until immediately prior to her second hospitalization. In similarly dismissing her claim that WPI breached its contractual obligations by not enforcing its Code of Conduct to protect her from the fellow student, the court noted that she only pointed to aspirational expectations in the Code rather than a specific promise.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Distressed & Suicidal Students | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Tort Litigation

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.