Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Szeto v. Univ. of Colo. (D. Colo. Feb 19, 2025)

    Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a student in the University of Colorado’s (“University”) Medical Scientist Training Program (“MSTP”), alleged Title IX retaliation based on her dismissal from the Graduate school, Title IX retaliation based on her dismissal from the Medical school and referral to the Colorado Physicians Health Program (“CPHP”), and violation of Title II of the ADA. Plaintiff also alleged a §1983 claim against her lab professor for violation of her First Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s claims are centered around her failure to complete certain standards and examinations for the MSTP program. The court concluded that the University was entitled to summary judgment on both of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims. For Plaintiff’s retaliation claim centered around her dismissal from the Graduate School, the court found that Plaintiff “failed to demonstrate a causal connection between protected activity and her dismissal from the Graduate School.” Additionally, the court found that Plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim based on the CPHP referral and subsequent dismissal from the Medical School must also fail because Plaintiff failed to show that the CPHP referral was a materially adverse action. The court noted that even if Plaintiff had been able to show a materially adverse action, she was unable to demonstrate a causal connection between “her protected activity and her dismissal from the Medical School.” Turning to Plaintiff’s ADA claim, the court found that she was unable to demonstrate a “triable issue as to whether the University regarded her as disabled or referred her to the CPHP because of a perceived disability….” Finally, the court found that Plaintiff’s lab professor was also entitled to summary judgment on her §1983 claim. The court further noted that at no point did Plaintiff demonstrate an issue of material fact as to whether her professor was “substantially motivated” to resign as Plaintiff’s thesis advisor and subsequently remove her from the lab because of Plaintiff’s allegations against the MSTP director or Plaintiff’s complaints about the professor’s authorship practices. 

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Kalia v. City Coll. of N.Y. (S.D. N.Y. Feb 18, 2025)

    Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of History at the City College of New York (CCNY), alleged race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the analogous New York law against CCNY, the City University of New York (CUNY), and three employees. Plaintiff’s claims surround his longstanding effort to become a “Distinguished Professor” at CCNY. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s Title VII hostile work environment claim, and parts of the retaliation claim are precluded. Turning to plaintiff’s Title VII disparate treatment claim, the court concluded that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege discriminatory motive. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered an adverse employment action when he was denied the Distinguished Professor appointment. The court noted that Plaintiff’s claim that his application “was much stronger” than other professors who were considered for the  appointment was “insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination” and that plaintiff did not allege any factual allegations that he did not receive the appointment because of “his race, color, or national origin.” Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims that he was not allowed to take sabbatical and that he was denied the opportunity to teach a historiography course also failed. Turning to the remaining parts of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court found that the claim “fail[ed] because he d[id] not establish a causal connection between any of his protected activity and the denial of his Distinguished Professor appointment.” It also noted that Plaintiff did not show that any person’s intent “was the proximate cause” of the Promotion and Benefits Committee’s decision to deny his appointment to Distinguished Professor. 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter on Title VI Compliance (Feb. 14, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter re: Title VI Compliance. The Letter is issued to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). The letter states that pursuant to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) decision “nebulous concepts like racial balancing and diversity are not compelling interests.” It further states that federal law prohibits covered entities from using race in decision pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life. The Letter critiques other methods of potential race-based decision making such as utilizing students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other means to determine or predict a student’s race and to favor or disfavor such students. The Letter states that additional legal guidance will follow in due course and the Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations consistent with the Letter beginning not later than 14 days from its issuance, including anti-discrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funds. It concludes by stating that all educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited use of race. 

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Pflag, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2025)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, as well as PFLAG, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting LGBTQ+ people, the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights, Inc., GLMA Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, and six individually named transgender individuals who are all under nineteen years old filed a complaint against President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order 14168 titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (the “Gender Identity Order”) and Executive Order 14189 titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” (the “Healthcare Order”). Plaintiffs contend that the EOs violate separation of powers, directly conflict with existing statutes, violate the Equal Protection Clause, and place conditions on federal funding that Congress did not prescribe. Finding in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Court found the EOs “a clear violation of the Constitution as attempts by the Executive Branch to place new conditions on federal funds are an improper attempt to wield Congress’s exclusive spending power and is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.” (Citing County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal. 2017)). The Court goes on to point out that “defendants have not even attempted to show that Congress authorized, explicitly or implicitly, the withholding of federal funds from medical institutions that do not comply with the Administration’s policies on healthcare for transgender youth.” Finally, in determining that the President has exceeded his authority, the Court granted a temporary restraining order and ordered a nationwide injunction enjoining the enforcement of particular sections of the two EOs as they relate to a prohibition on federal funding for institutions that provide gender affirming medical care for transgender patients under the age of nineteen

    Topics:

    Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research

  • Date:

    Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut (D. N.H. Feb. 12, 2025)

    Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs, transgender female high school student athletes, challenged a New Hampshire statute, HB 1205, claiming it violated Title IX because it discriminated on the basis of sex, when it defined “sex” as a student’s biological sex at birth and mandated that “[a]thletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex,” thereby excluding transgender females from participation in women’s sports. Plaintiffs also challenged the January 20, 2025, Executive Order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and the February 5, 2025, Executive Order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” as facially discriminatory on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX, and as unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments and the separation of powers in Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution. 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism – The White House (Jan. 29 2025)

    Executive Order: “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.” This Order requires the head of each executive department or agency to submit a report to the President within 60 days of the Order identifying all civil and criminal authorities or actions within the jurisdiction of that agency that might be used to curb or combat anti-Semitism, as well as an inventory and analysis of all pending administrative complaints against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism. Additionally, this report requires the Secretaries of Education and Homeland Security to draft recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) so that institutions may monitor for, and report activities by, resident noncitizen students and staff. On January 30, the White House also published a Fact Sheet to aid in the implementation of its Order.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism– The White House (Jan. 29, 2025)

    Executive Order: Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. This Executive Order requires the head of each agency to submit a report identifying all civil and criminal authorities or actions within the jurisdiction of that agency that might be used to curb or combat anti-Semitism, and containing an inventory and analysis of all pending administrative complaints, as of the date of the report, against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil-rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism and indicate whether the Attorney General intends to or has taken any action with respect to such matters, including filing statements of interest or intervention. The Order further states that the Secretaries of State, Education, and Homeland Security, must include in their reports recommendations for familiarizing postsecondary institutions with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by non-citizen students and staff relevant to those grounds. In addition to the Order, a Fact Sheet was published with a quote attributed to President Trump, which states “I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.” 

    Topics:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    Dear Colleague Letter: U.S. Department of Education to Enforce 2020 Title IX Rule Protecting Women (Jan. 31, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter re: Enforcement of the 2020 Title IX Rules. The Letter states the binding regulatory framework for Title IX enforcement includes the principles and provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, 34 C.F.R. 106, and excludes and vacates the 2024 Title IX Rule. Pursuant to the Letter, open Title IX investigations initiated under the 2024 Title IX Rule should be immediately reoriented to comport fully with the requirements of the 2020 Title IX Rule. The Letter also states that Title IX must be enforced consistent with President Donald J. Trump’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order: “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Resources pertaining to Title IX and the 2020 Title IX rule can be found here. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Department of Defense Memorandum on Restoring America’s Fighting Force (Jan. 29, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Defense (the Department) published a Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership titled: “Restoring America’s Fighting Force.” The Memorandum states that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, as defined in the January 27, 2025, Executive Order are incompatible with the values of the Department and the Department will strive to provide merit-based, color-blind, equal opportunities to Service members but will neither guarantee nor strive for equal outcomes. The Memorandum was published in accordance with Executive Order: “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” which formally prohibited any preference or disadvantage for any individual or a group within the Armed Forces on the basis of sex, race, or ethnicity. Additionally, the Memorandum states that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) will establish a Task Force to oversee the elimination of any program, element, or initiative that was established to promote “divisive concepts” as defined in Executive Order 13950 of September 2020 (“Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”), or “gender ideology” as defined in Executive Order of January 2025 (“Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”). The Task Force will report on actions taken by the Department to terminate DEI initiatives by March 1, 2025, and issue a final report on June 1, 2025. 

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation (Jan. 28, 2025)

    Executive Order: “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” This Executive Order directs that “it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the … ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another” and that the Federal government “will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these … life-altering procedures.” The EO (1) denounces the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s “Standards of Care Version 8” guidelines for gender-affirming care for minors; (2) directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to both “publish a review of the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health of children” and “withdraw HHS’s March 2, 2022, guidance document titled ‘HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights and Patient Privacy;’” and (3) instructs “[t]he head of each executive department or agency [] that provides research or education grants to medical institutions, including medical schools and hospitals, shall, consistent with applicable law and in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving Federal research or education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.” 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Benefits | Faculty & Staff | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Health Care & Insurance | Sex 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.

Register