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:
Initial Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions – The White House (Jan. 20, 2025)
Executive Order: Initial Rescission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions. This Executive Order revokes dozens of Executive Orders from the prior Administration, including but not limited to: Executive Order 14124 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions); Executive Order 14110 (Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence); Executive Order 14087 (Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans); Executive Order 14050 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans); Executive Order 14049 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities); Executive Order 14045 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Hispanics); and Executive Order 14041 (Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity).
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin DiscriminationDate:
Young Americans for Freedom v. U.S. Department of Education (E.D.N.D. Dec. 31, 2024)
Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, two organizations, the Young America’s Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom, along with two individual students sought an injunction (1) prohibiting the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) “from enforcing or otherwise implementing the racial and ethnic classifications in [the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program (the Program)]” and (2) requiring the Department to notify universities participating in the Program that they cannot impose or rely on racial and ethnic classifications. Plaintiffs allege the Department’s underrepresented race criteria for the Program is unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause and such racial eligibility requirement “is a harm to [their] personal dignity.” While individual Plaintiffs both wished to apply to the Program, they ultimately chose not to because of their race (white) and lack of low-income or first-generation college student status. In finding that plaintiffs lack standing, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ alleged injury for “the denial of equal treatment” in the application and admission process will not be redressed by any injunction against the Department because the higher education institutions are also part of the administration of the Program. The Department awards institutions five-year grants to administer the Program on their campuses, and once funding is distributed, it is up to the institutions – not the Department – to select applicants. Because “there is nothing in the record that indicates the Department has any control over the grants once allocated to the institutions” and since institutions would not be bound by the Court’s order, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for Preliminary Injunction and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | StudentsDate:
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Publishes New Resource on 2024 ADA Title II Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (Jan. 8, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section published a new resource that contains suggested action steps that Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinators and others working with state and local governments may take to ensure their website content and mobile apps comply with the Title II Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule. In addition to the action steps resource provided, a Fact Sheet is also available to provide a basic introduction to the rule. Institutions are expected to comply beginning April 2026 and April 2027, depending on population size.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Technology | Technology AccessibilityDate:
OCR Resolution Agreement with Emory University re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 16, 2025)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Emory University resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to discrimination based on shared Palestinian, Muslim, and/or Arab ancestry and/or race. The associated Resolution Letter noted that OCR joined the University’s President in expressing concern with the “gratuitous violence of … law enforcement” seen through publicized videos of arrests during the April 2024 protests, which may have created a hostile environment for Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim university members. OCR expressed concerns regarding potential ambiguity in the University’s publicly available policies and procedures on reporting discrimination and noted that clarification could support compliance with the requirements of Title VI. The Agreement sets forth the University’s commitment to: (1) revise its nondiscrimination policies and procedures; (2) conduct annual training for all students, employees, investigators, and campus law enforcement; (3) engage in file reviews; (4) administer a climate survey; and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
OCR Resolution Agreement with the University of Washington re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 15, 2025)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the University of Washington resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter stated that OCR reviewed approximately 140 reports of alleged shared ancestry discrimination or harassment that were submitted to the University during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 academic years. OCR noted that the University took several steps to address incidents, which otherwise may have created a hostile environment based on shared ancestry on campus, including statements from University leadership with attached resources, meeting with students, as well as creating multiple task forces and holding several focus groups. Notwithstanding, OCR concluded that the University could have taken additional steps to assess and address incidents of a potential hostile environment on campus, as existent University responses were not necessarily designed to fully remedy any existing hostile environments resulting from shared ancestry-based harassment. The Agreement set forth the University’s commitment to: (1) review and update policies and procedures; (2) provide training to investigators, staff, and students; (3) conduct a climate assessment; (4) engage in file reviews; and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Department of Education Overview of the Law Webpage Updated Following the Vacating of the 2024 Rule (Jan. 14, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) updated its resource page on Title IX following the January 9, 2025, court order vacating the 2024 Final Rule. The page notes that “on January 9, 2025, a federal district court issued a decision vacating the 2024 Final Rule. Consistent with the court’s order, the 2024 Title IX regulations and these resources are not effective in any jurisdiction.” No new resources have been posted; the 2020 amendments are available on the webpage, along with additional information and technical assistance.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
OCR Resolution Letter with UCLA Finding Insufficient Evidence re Response to Alleged Antisemitic Harassment (Jan. 13, 2025)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), resolving a complaint that alleged the University failed to respond promptly or effectively to alleged harassment based on shared Jewish ancestry in 2018. During a Students for Justice in Palestine conference on the University’s campus, students expressed concern related to potential harassment, before, during, and after the conference. Following its investigation, OCR concluded that the University’s response to the alleged harassment did not violate federal civil rights requirements. Specifically, OCR found the University took timely, reasonable, and effective steps to address student concerns by (1) working to align time, place, and manner restrictions while permitting the conference to be a private event; (2) working with students and campus security prioritizing safety; (3) providing students the opportunity to present counter-messaging before and during the conference; (4) ensuring University administrators were present and accessible throughout the conference and afterwards; (5) widely publicizing how to file a complaint with the University regarding harassment; and (6) publishing an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times from the University Chancellor warning of the dangers of antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
OCR Resolution Agreement with Lehigh University re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 13, 2025)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Lehigh University resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted that OCR was concerned that the University had not evaluated whether individual incidents of alleged harassment or aggregate incidents of alleged harassment that occurred during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 academic years contributed to a hostile environment for students based on shared ancestry. OCR noted the important steps taken by the University to fulfill its Title VI obligations with respect to shared ancestry through coordinated events and programs, as well as communication from University leadership. The Agreement set forth the University’s commitment to: (1) revise its nondiscrimination policies and procedures; (2) conduct annual training for all employees, staff, and students; (3) engage in file reviews; (4) administer a climate survey; and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Tenn. v. Cardona (E.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2025)
Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, the states of Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia, along with plaintiff intervenor Christian Educators Association International and A.C., by her mother, sued the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) challenging the Title IX Final Rule and its corresponding regulations, and alleged the regulations are invalid, the Department exceeded its lawful authority in implementing them, and that the regulations are otherwise contrary to law. In finding that the Department exceeded its statutory authority and relying on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in its reasoning, the court wrote “there is nothing in the text or statutory design of Title IX to suggest that discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ means anything other than it has since Title IX’s inception–that recipients of federal funds under Title IX may not treat a person worse than another similarly-situated individual on the basis of the person’s sex, i.e., male or female.” Finding that the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceeded the Department’s authority, and violate the Constitution, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and denied the Department’s motion for summary judgment, ultimately barring the Final Rule from being enforced nationwide.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
U.S. Department of Education Publishes New Resource on Resolving a Hostile Environment under Title VI (Jan. 10, 2025)
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a new resource titled “Resolving a Hostile Environment Under Title VI: Discrimination Based on Race, Color, or National Origin, Including Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics.” The Resource is intended to help school communities in understanding their obligations under Title VI, explores considerations for schools to take into account when taking action to resolve a hostile environment, and provides numerous examples of former Resolution Letters and Resolution Agreements.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
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.