Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
4/6/2026
Department of Education Rescinds Provisions of Title IX Resolution Agreements from Prior Administrations (Apr. 6, 2026)
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has rescinded provisions of resolution agreements from prior administrations, stating that portions of the agreements were based on “heavy-handed manipulation of Title IX.” OCR wrote that it will no longer monitor or enforce the agreements that were reached with five school districts and Taft College.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Date:
3/31/2026
Johnson v. Georgetown University (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2026)
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former Assistant Director at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, sued the university and 12 other defendants alleging Title VII discrimination, retaliation and other claims, after she was hired and terminated a month later after social media posts she made eight years prior describing her “‘hat[red]’ for Zionists” went viral. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the university finding that plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin and that her tort claims could not proceed due to procedural and substantive defects. While plaintiff argued the university had deviated from its probation policy in terminating her so swiftly, the court disagreed finding the policy “clearly afford[ed] the university the right to fire an employee for behavior that her department deem[ed] ‘unacceptable’.” The court also dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s claims against the other defendants with the exception of her claims against Canary Mission. Because Canary Mission refused to appear in the case, and did not move to dismiss plaintiff’s claims, the court permitted plaintiff to consider whether to seek a default judgment against it.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation | Social Media | Technology
Date:
3/31/2026
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, et al. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2026)
Memorandum Opinion Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Enforcement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as part of its investigation into possible discrimination against Jewish employees at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university seeking to enforce a subpoena that sought, among other things, lists of school groups and organizations “related to the Jewish religion,” including personal contact information for Penn employees in those groups. The court found that while “ineptly worded,” the EEOC’s request had an “understandable purpose.” The court rejected the university’s argument that the subpoena infringed on affected employees’ substantive due process right to informational privacy, determining that home addresses, phone numbers, and participation in campus groups did not rise to the level of “highly personal” non-public facts. The court also found that the university failed to demonstrate how disclosure would create a “serious safety risk,” and provided little evidence as to how enforcement of the subpoena would chill the affected employees’ ability to associate. The court concluded that the EEOC’s charge was valid and ordered the university to comply with the subpoena, while noting the parties agreed upon stipulation that the university need not disclose employees’ specific affiliations with particular Jewish organizations. The university intends to appeal the decision.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
3/31/2026
Court Grants Joint Parties’ Stipulation in Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (Mar. 31, 2026)
The California State University System (CSU) sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024. After reviewing the joint stipulation from the parties, the court entered an order setting out how the case will be managed going forward. The order stipulates that within two business days of any determination by the Department that it intends to withhold funds or take other action against SJSU or CSU, the parties will provide the court with a proposed briefing and hearing schedule. CSU agrees to maintain existing policies and not treat the stipulation as a concession on the merits. The order protects CSU from immediate enforcement consequences, particularly the risk to federal funding, while allowing the court to later resolve CSU’s claims that the Department’s actions were unlawful, retroactive, and constitutionally impermissible.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
3/30/2026
AAU Comments on GSA Information Collection Request (Mar. 30, 2026)
The Association of American Universities (AAU) submitted comments to the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding its proposed revisions to the System for Award Management (SAM) Registration Requirements for Financial Assistance Recipients, urging GSA to withdraw the proposed certification revisions. AAU raises concern with the fact that the proposed certification would require institutions to certify compliance with standards that are not yet settled law or endorsed by the courts and notes that universities already certify compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws through existing SAM and grant application processes. The letter also raises concern that the proposal could chill lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities, impose substantial administrative and legal burdens, and centralize enforcement risk in a way that may expose institutions to heightened liability. AAU also stresses that before any certification requirement is finalized, the GSA must, at a minimum (1) define the key terms in plain language; (2) provide concrete examples of covered and non-covered institutional activities; and (3) establish a process by which institutions can seek binding guidance on whether specific programs comply with the certification’s requirements. The letter concludes by requesting that the GSA withdraw the proposed revised information collection requirement or extend the public comment period by at least 180 days, and engage in direct consultation with the higher education community before any revised certification text is published.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research
Date:
3/26/2026
Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors – The White House (Mar. 26, 2026)
Executive Order: “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” This Order directs all executive departments and agencies, within 30 days, to include in all contracts, to the extent permitted by law, a clause stating that the contractor agrees that it will not engage in any racially discriminatory DEI activities, defined broadly to include “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g. vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” The contractor must also agree that (1) it will furnish all information and reports, including providing access to books, records and accounts to the contracting agency for purposes of assuring compliance with these requirements and (2) that the contractor recognizes that compliance with the requirements of this clause are material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of the False Claims Act. The Order directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to contracting agencies to ensure compliance with the Order, including identifying economic sectors that pose a particular risk of engaging in discriminatory DEI activities, and directs the Attorney General to prioritize potential claims under the False Claims Act. The White House also published a Fact Sheet on the Order.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
3/25/2026
Newman v. Howard Univ. School of Law, et al. (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2026)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a white former law student at Howard University proceeding pro se, sued the university, law school dean, and several administrators for breach of contract and defamation, alleging administrators lowered his grades, took away his scholarship, and subjected him to a “smear campaign,” after he sent provocative and racially charged messages to classmates and was expelled. The court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s contract claims, finding no evidence that the university lowered his grades or class ranking and concluding that the loss of plaintiff’s scholarship resulted from his failure to meet its conditions. The court also granted summary judgment for the university on one of plaintiff’s defamation claims, concluding the dean’s statement that plaintiff harassed her and other students was a fair characterization in light of complaints from several students. However, the court allowed plaintiff’s remaining defamation claims to proceed, finding a reasonable jury could infer the dean’s statements, including one accusing plaintiff of saying “African Americans suffer from hive mind,” were made with malice given her prior frustration with plaintiff and her decision to initiate charges on behalf of unnamed students.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students
Date:
3/24/2026
Department of Education Issues Letter of Impending Enforcement to San Jose State University on Title IX Compliance (Mar. 24, 2026)
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has issued a Letter of Impending Enforcement Action to San Jose State University (SJSU) for its alleged “ongoing refusal to comply with Title IX.” This action follows OCR’s January 2026 findings that the university’s policies “allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.” According to the press release, OCR submitted a proposed resolution agreement to SJSU, which “the institution refused to sign [] or attempt to negotiate its terms . . . .” OCR has given the university 10 calendar days to come into compliance or face enforcement action, including referral to the Department of Justice and possible termination of federal funding.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Gender Equity in Athletics
Date:
3/23/2026
Molosso v. Bd. of Supervisors Univ. of La. Sys. (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2026)
Opinion Affirming Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, sued the university alleging, inter alia, discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate after she failed several courses and was dismissed from the program. The district court granted summary judgment for the university and the plaintiff appealed on two grounds: (1) that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her failure to accommodate claim; and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 56(b) motion for more discovery time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that because plaintiff’s need for an accommodation due to her ADHD “was not open and obvious” and because she failed to request an accommodation, there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the university knew of her need for an accommodation. The court further held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion, finding she failed to diligently pursue discovery during her three-month continuance.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Students
Date:
3/23/2026
Department of Education Opens Two Title VI Investigations into Harvard University (Mar. 23, 2026)
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has opened two new investigations into Harvard University for alleged Title VI violations. Specifically, OCR will investigate (1) whether Harvard continues to use “illegal race-based preferences in admissions” despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard; and (2) allegations of “ongoing antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus and the institution’s purported failure to protect Jewish students.” Additionally, OCR issued a letter of Impending Enforcement Action based on the university’s “continued refusal to provide requested information related to its admissions process.” OCR has given the university 20 calendar days to comply or be faced with enforcement actions, including referral to the Department of Justice.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination

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.