Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Sailer v. Emporia State Univ. (D. Kan. Jun. 17, 2025)

    Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former head coach of the women’s soccer team at Emporia State University, brought claims of retaliation and violation of the First Amendment against the University and the University’s Athletic Director after his employment was terminated. While plaintiff was employed at the University, he helped draft and supported a letter delivered by the captains of the women’s soccer team to University administrators, consisting of complaints on the diminishing soccer field, dissatisfaction with the strength training sessions and film access, and expressing frustration that the “men’s athletic teams are treated more favorably by school administration” expressly referencing Title IX (hereinafter referred to as the Title IX complaint). Following the Title IX complaint, the Athletic Director informed the team that the University “planned an in-depth Title IX review of the athletic department that would be taking place in the next two months.” Following the Title IX complaint, Plaintiff was suspended following complaints from the assistant coach and graduate assistant coach of the team which alleged that the women’s soccer team “had been drinking on the bus following the conference championship game [and] . . . alleged that plaintiff was aware of the drinking and had participated in it.” Plaintiff subsequently filed an internal Title IX complaint with the University, where he alleged “that [the University] retaliated against him for complaining about sex discrimination on behalf of the women’s soccer team in violation of Title IX.” Regarding the retaliation claim, the Court denied the motion to dismiss based on statements in support of the Title IX complaint, recognizing that as protected activity, and granted the motion to dismiss regarding non-protected statements in support of other complaints. Regarding plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, he alleged that his support of the Title IX complaint was “a matter of public concern.” Furthermore, Plaintiff alleged that because “his official duties [do] not include supporting his team’s Title IX complaint, his speech is protected by the First Amendment.” The Court held in favor of defendants, agreeing that “plaintiff’s speech [] was made as part of his assigned responsibilities as head coach of the women’s soccer team.” The Court further reasoned that “[i]t is also significant that plaintiff’s speech, without exception, was directed at individuals within his chain of command . . . [which] further suggests that plaintiff was speaking pursuant to his official duties.” As such, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amendment claims.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Athletics Operations | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation

  • Date:

    A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 (Jun. 12, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Vacating and Remanding. Plaintiff, a teenager with epilepsy brought disability discrimination claims against her school district, defendant Osseo Area Schools, after the school repeatedly refused the request for an adjusted afterhours instruction accommodation. The Eighth Circuit granted defendant summary judgment, stating that a school district’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation was not enough to state a prima facie case of discrimination under Monahan v. Nebraska, which requires a plaintiff to prove conduct by school officials rising to the level of bad faith or gross misjudgment. In contrast to the Eighth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that “[s]choolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” The Court did not weigh in on whether the standard should be “bad faith or gross misconduct” across the board. Rather, the Court held more narrowly that “claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” 

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

  • Date:

    Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Jun. 5, 2025)

    Vacatur and Remand. Plaintiff, a straight, white woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004 filed a Title VII claim against her employer alleging she was denied a management promotion, and demoted because of her sexual orientation. Plaintiff interviewed for a new management position in 2019, but her employer hired another candidate who was lesbian. Plaintiff was later demoted from her role, and her employer then filled that role with a gay man. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision. The two courts reviewed plaintiff’s claim under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting framework and concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Both lower courts reasoned that because plaintiff is a straight, white woman, she was required to make the showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing the prima-facie case.” While the Sixth Circuit “background circumstances” rule required plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden during the first step of the application of the framework, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not change based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. The Court wrote that the so-called “background circumstances” rule ignored its instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard. In its unanimous decision, the Court resolved the prior circuit split regarding the correct evidentiary standard to apply to majority-group plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the Court’s decision aligns the standard to be applied to all plaintiffs, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for application of the proper standard. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission (Jun. 5, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Reversing and Remanding. Petitioners, Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and four of its subentities, challenged the decision by respondents, Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, to deny petitioners’ request for a statutorily defined exemption from paying unemployment compensation taxes to the state. The state statute at issue “exempts nonprofit organizations “‘operated primarily for religious purposes’ and ‘operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches’. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in favor of respondents, “holding that petitioners were not ‘operated primarily for religious purposes’ because they neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics.” The Court considered whether Wisconsin’s statute, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law does violate the First Amendment. The Court found that “[t]he First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny.” The Court reasoned that “an exemption that requires proselytization or exclusive service of co-religionists establishes a preference for certain religions based on the commands of their religious doctrine.” The Court found that the law’s application does not survive strict scrutiny because its theological demarcations were not narrowly tailored to further the purported compelling governmental interests of “ensuring unemployment coverage for [Wisconsin] citizens” and “avoiding entanglement with employment decisions based on religious doctrine”. The Court concluded by stating “it is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion.’”  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Notifies Accreditor of Alleged Title VI Violation at Columbia University (Jun. 4, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (the Department) announced that it notified Middle States Commission on Higher Education (the Commission) that its member institution, Columbia University, is allegedly in violation of antidiscrimination laws and therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission. The Department notified the accreditor pursuant to Executive Order “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” This announcement follows the May 22, 2025, announcement that the Department, as well as the Department for Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights alleged that the University acted with deliberate indifference toward the harassment of Jewish students and thus violated Title VI.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Homeland Security Notice of Intent to Withdraw at Harvard University (May 28, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Homeland Security (the Department) sent Harvard University a Notice of Intent to Withdraw terminating Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification based on an alleged failure to comply with federal regulations. The Notice states that potential compliance issues were identified during a review of University records, including: (1) failure to comply with reporting requirements; (2) failure to maintain a campus environment free from violence and antisemitism; and (3) practices with foreign entities raising national security concerns. It gives Harvard 30 calendar days to respond regarding the alleged deficiencies and demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Immigration | International Students | International Ventures | Research

  • Date:

    Hoffman v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (W.D. Wis. May 27, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a white woman who was appointed interim director of the Multicultural Student Services Department (the Department), alleged that her former employer, the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, discriminated and retaliated against her under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff contends that the University demoted her from her leadership position, refused to stop racially discriminatory comments about her presence in the Department, forced her to transfer to a different department, and then retaliated in various ways against her for filing a racial discrimination complaint. Plaintiff alleged that following her appointment as interim director, students, faculty, and staff objected to her appointment because she was white, questioning whether she “can do as effective a job as a person of color, within a space for people of color.” Plaintiff was then removed as interim director and made the assistant director instead. Criticism of the Department’s staff continued as an alumni group posted online that the Department was “overwhelmingly white” and that “positions of decision-making authority were being strategically replaced by white folks.” Additionally, over 100 faculty members signed an open letter expressing concerns about the “marginalization” of students served by the Department, the resignation of staff who served those students, and the “disregard for collaboration and shared governance” in the Department. While University leadership was aware of the online remarks and the faculty letter, plaintiff maintains that they did not speak against it. Plaintiff further alleged that she experienced discrimination within the Department in her relationships with faculty and staff, when non-white faculty and staff held three meetings during the spring and summer of 2022 and excluded plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that some staff members refused to communicate with her after she was named assistant director and was told “everyone’s questioning your legitimacy in this office.” Plaintiff allegedly reported to human resources in July 2022 that she wanted to file a racial discrimination complaint about her experiences in the Department but was instead offered transfer to another department as a resolution. Plaintiff also asserted a hostile work environment claim regarding the criticism from the campus community about appointing white people to departmental leadership, and that the University discriminated against her based on her race when it demoted her from the interim director position, transferred her to another department, and removed her as the instructor from a course. The court dismissed the hostile work environment claim, finding that plaintiff showed nothing more than “relatively isolated instances of non-severe misconduct,” which were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of her employment. The court permitted the discrimination claim to proceed, reasoning that although plaintiff did not suffer losses in title or salary, a reasonable jury could find that the loss of her leadership responsibilities was “harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” Finally, it found that a reasonable jury could find that losing leadership responsibilities would deter an ordinary employee from complaining about discrimination, and thus, plaintiff’s retaliation claim may proceed.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    U.S. Office for Civil Rights Announces Title VI Violation at Columbia University (May 22, 2025)

    U.S. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that Columbia University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by acting with deliberate indifference towards student-on-student harassment of Jewish students from October 7, 2023, through the present. The announcement states that the findings of violation are based on information and documents obtained during investigation including witness interviews; examination of written policies and procedures; reliable media reports that contemporaneously capture antisemitic incidents and events at the University; and reports from the University’s own Task Force on Antisemitism. Specifically, the announcement states that the University failed to (1) establish effective reporting and remediation mechanisms for antisemitism until the summer of 2024; (2) properly abide by its own policies and procedures when responding to Jewish students’ complaints; (3) abide by its only policies and procedures governing student misconduct against Jewish students; (4) investigate or punish vandalism in its classrooms, which include the repeated drawing of swastikas and other universally recognized hate images; and (5) enforce its time, place, and manner restrictions for protests held on campus, such as inside and around its academic buildings, residence halls, and libraries since October 7, 2023. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    Department of Energy Direct Final Rule on Regulations Related to Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (May 16, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Energy (the Department) issued a Direct Final Rule (DFR) rescinding certain regulatory provisions related to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, based on its determination that the provisions are unnecessary. Specifically, the Department seeks rescission of paragraphs (b) through (d) of the regulation, titled “Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation.” The Department stated that the requirements were intended to be limited to evaluations conducted between February 20, 2001, to February 20, 2002, and are therefore “unnecessary.” The DFR takes effect July 15, 2025, “unless significant adverse comments are received” on or before June 16, 2025.  

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Department of Energy Direct Final Rule Rescinding New Construction Requirements Related to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities (May 16, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Energy (the Department) issued a Direct Final Rule (DFR) rescinding certain provisions related to “New Construction” in the section “Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities” stating that the provision is unnecessary and unduly burdensome. Based on general prohibition on discriminatory activities and related penalties, the Department found the additional provisions of 10 C.F.R. 1040.73, which require that each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient of federal financial assistance must ensure each facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and useable by handicapped persons, is unnecessary and unduly burdensome. The Department reiterated its policy to give private entities flexibility to comply with the law in the manner they deem most efficient and stated that one-size-fits-all rules are rarely the best option. The DFR takes effect July 15, 2025, “unless significant adverse comments are received” on or before June 16, 2025. 

    Topics:

    Accessible Facilities | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

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.

Register