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:
Li v. Ne. Univ. (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former marketing manager at Northeastern University’s Seattle Campus who was diagnosed with conditions making it difficult for her to type, sit at her desk, or speak for extended periods, brought state-law failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and retaliation claims against the University after it placed her on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and terminated her for failing to meet job expectations. After taking intermittent and then continuous FMLA leave, the University denied her ADA accommodation request for speech-to-text software, noting she still would be unable to perform essential functions, and terminated her employment. Sitting in diversity, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her failure to accommodate claim, finding that questions of fact remained as to (1) whether she could have performed her duties with the help of the software and (2) whether the University had engaged sufficiently in an interactive process. It granted summary judgment to the University, however, on her disparate treatment and retaliation claims.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
Joint OCR and DOJ Dear Colleague Letter on Online Accessibility (May 19, 2023)
Joint Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Justice on Postsecondary Online Accessibility. This DCL notes that online content provided through websites and third-party online platforms is a “service, program, or activity of the college, university, or other postsecondary institution” that is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The DCL also reviews the legal framework, recent enforcement actions, and applicable guidance and regulations.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Technology | Technology AccessibilityDate:
Minor v. La. State Univ. at Eunice (W.D. La. Apr. 25, 2023)
Report and Recommendation granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Louisiana State University at Eunice, brought disability discrimination and due process claims against the University and its Dean of Students after she received a zero on an exam for cheating and was dismissed from the program due to the failing grade. The court dismissed her disability discrimination claims against the University as time barred, in part due to lack of proper service. Turning to her due process claims, the court held that even assuming plaintiff’s appeal hearing was disciplinary in nature, plaintiff received sufficient procedural due process even though the University (1) did not present her original scratch paper and alleged cheat sheet or live witnesses, (2) did not consider an advisor’s email describing the way she used scratch paper to write out all of her knowledge at the beginning of an exam to manage her test-taking anxiety, and (3) permitted the allegedly biased Dean to remain with the hearing panel as it made its decision. Plaintiff’s substantive due process claim failed because she did not allege that her dismissal was arbitrary or shocking to the conscience.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | 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.