Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
1/10/2025
OCR Resolution Agreement with John Hopkins University re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 7, 2025)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and John Hopkins University resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted that OCR considered documentation of 99 incidents of alleged harassment on the basis of shared ancestry that were reported to the University from October 2023 through May 2023. OCR further reviewed the University’s Policy and Procedures, correspondence to the University community, and recognized the University’s proactive response to some incidents that could contribute to a hostile environment for students, while also identifying potential concerns regarding the University’s fulfillment of its Title VI obligations responsive to alleged discriminatory conduct. The Agreement sets forth the University’s commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, and students, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, and (4) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
1/10/2025
OCR Resolution Agreement with Rutgers University re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 2, 2025)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Rutgers University resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted OCR’s compliance concerns regarding both potential different treatment of students based on their shared ancestry, as well as the University’s response to reports of alleged harassment and possible hostile environments for students based on their national origins (including shared Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and/or South Asian ancestry). OCR’s investigation considered over 100 reports from students, employees, and members of the public alleging Jewish/Israeli-based discrimination and/or harassment during academic years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. OCR’s investigation also surfaced concerns as to if the University adequately evaluated whether reported or investigated harassment created a hostile environment for students, potentially permitting a hostile environment to persist unmitigated. OCR found that the University responded to reported incidents individually but was less effective in considering putative cumulative, hostile effects on the environment and remediating those effects on impacted students. Lastly, OCR expressed concerns for consistent treatment of students based on their national origin with respect to implementation of University policies and procedures governing student conduct and events on campus, such as doxxing. The Agreement sets forth the University’s commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, students, and officers, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, (4) issue a statement to all University students and employees that the University does not tolerate acts of discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of national origin, including shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, (5) conduct listening sessions between relevant University administrators and representatives from relevant affinity groups, and (6) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
1/10/2025
OCR Resolution Agreement with Five Campuses in the University of California System re Title VI Compliance (Dec. 20, 2024)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Five Campuses within the University of California System resolving complaints that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Palestinian, and/or Arab ancestry. The Agreement resolved nine complaints filed with OCR against five University of California (UC) campuses in Los Angeles (UCLA), Santa Barbara (UCSB), San Diego (UCSD), Davis (UCD), and Santa Cruz (UCSC). The associated Resolution Letter noted concerns that the University campuses may have failed to respond promptly or effectively to possible hostile environments based on national origin/shared ancestry when: (1) the alleged harassing conduct or protests involved First Amendment-protected speech and the Universities appeared to have not adequately evaluated whether the conduct created a hostile environment based on shared ancestry; and (2) some of the Universities’ responses to alleged shared ancestry harassment may have failed to remedy the effects of a potential or apparent hostile environment and prevent a recurrence of the alleged harassment. OCR further noted that more than 150 complaints were made with regard to campus protests and encampments, articulating allegations of (1) violent and threatening speech; (2) unwanted filming and doxing; (3) reported checkpoints across campus; and (4) alleged failures by campus police to protect student protestors when they were violently attacked, injured, and intimidated by counter-protestors, including third parties. The Agreement sets forth the Universities’ commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, officers, and students, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, (4) obtain OCR approval for any revisions to relevant University policies and procedures, and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
1/10/2025
OCR Resolution Agreement with the University of Cincinnati re Title VI Compliance (Dec. 20, 2024)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the University of Cincinnati resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish and Palestinian ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted that the University had notice of approximately two dozen reports of alleged harassment based on Jewish or Palestinian ancestry, during the 2023-2024 academic year. OCR’s investigation found that the University was under responsive to reports of shared ancestry harassment it received, in that if the underlying speech was protected no further action was taken to remediate potential harm occasioned by the speech. OCR reiterated institutional obligations to address alleged harassment even if a complaint could not identify a perpetrator by name; the conduct was not directed at a specific individual; the conduct involved multiple perpetrators or a registered student organization; or the conduct occurred off campus. The Agreement sets forth the University’s commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, officers, and students, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, (4) revise University policies and procedures, and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
1/3/2025
Rageh v. Univ. of N.C. (M.D. N.C. Dec. 10, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a medical doctor, over the age of forty, and of Egyptian national origin alleged that during his ophthalmology fellowship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University discriminated against him and retaliated against him based on his national origin and age, under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff also brought claims for defamation per se, breach of contract, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (hereinafter referred to as state law claims). Plaintiff was in a two-year fellowship at the University to receive training in ophthalmology. During his time in the program, he alleged one of his supervising physicians mocked his accent, criticized him for mispronunciation, and frequently allowed younger residents to participate in operations more than him. Plaintiff alleges the same supervising physician refused to work with him after expressing unjustified concerns about plaintiff’s skills and issues with patient safety, and after plaintiff brought his concerns to a supervisor, he alleges he was retaliated against when the University shortened his fellowship to one year. Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and alleges the University subsequently terminated his fellowship. Plaintiff contends that he was informed by the University’s fellowship director that he was terminated because he filed the EEOC complaint, and the fellowship director informed plaintiff’s potential employers and state licensing boards that plaintiff was relieved from seeing patients due to safety concerns. The court allowed the ADEA claim, and Title VII claim based on denial of training opportunities to proceed, based on plaintiff’s allegations that (1) he was over forty years old during the fellowship, (2) the supervising physician provided him with fewer training opportunities than younger residents, (3) the supervising physician expressed concerns about plaintiff’s age to the fellowship director before plaintiff’s fellowship had even started, and (4) plaintiff’s position as a protected class member. However, the court found plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting his claim that his fellowship was shortened and then terminated due to either his age or his national origin, and as such, it dismissed the ADEA and Title VII claims related to the addended length and subsequent termination of the fellowship. It denied the University’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding plaintiff’s claim that the fellowship director informed him that he was terminated because of his EEOC filing was sufficient to give rise to a plausible inference of retaliation. The court dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims against the University, but allowed the defamation per se claim to proceed against the fellowship director based on the allegation that the director informed plaintiff’s prospective employers that he was terminated due to patient safety concerns. For the same reason, the court permitted the interference with prospective economic advantage claim to proceed. Finally, the court allowed plaintiff to proceed with his wrongful interference with employment contract based on both the fellowship director and supervising physician’s purported knowledge of his employment contract, alleged false allegations made by the supervising physician about plaintiff’s skills with intent to induce the University to breach the contract, and the fellowship director’s steps to allegedly induce the University to breach it’s employment contract with plaintiff based on his filing with the EEOC.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation
Date:
1/3/2025
U.S. Dept. Of Education, Office for Civil Rights Resource for Individualized Assessments for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education (Jan. 3, 2025)
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights resource regarding Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 “Individualized Assessments for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education.” The Resource reiterates Section 504’s prohibition against one size fits all accommodations, and the requirement that recipients of federal financial assistance must individually assess each student’s need for accommodation via the requisite interactive process. It cautions against inflexibility and rigid adherence to past practice while providing examples of potential individualized academic adjustments.
Topics:
Accessible Facilities | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity
Date:
1/3/2025
U.S. Dept. of Education, Office for Civil Rights Annual Report (Dec. 20, 2024)
Annual Report of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for fiscal year 2024. The Report detailed an 18% increase in complaints received over FY 2023, which is the highest number per annum. It recounted OCR’s publication of a record-high of 23 policy resources addressing race and national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and disability rights, and its 36% increase in case resolutions. Finally, the Report summarized data on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Civil Rights Data from the 2020-21 school year, and issuance of the 2024 Title IX Final Rule.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity
Date:
12/20/2024
U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report on Antisemitism (Dec. 18, 2024)
The U.S. House of Representatives created a Staff Report on Antisemitism that heavily criticized postsecondary responses to Antisemitism, claiming colleges and universities failed to stop Antisemitism on their campuses and to consistently enforce rules or impose meaningful discipline in response to such incidents. The Report made broad requests for more aggressive enforcement of Title VI to hold universities accountable and encouraged Congress to pass (1) legislation removing Title IV eligibility from any institution that boycotts or divests from Israel, (2) the DETERRENT Act, and (3) the College Cost Reduction Act.
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Conduct | Students
Date:
12/13/2024
Harvey v. Mass. Inst. of Tech. (D. Mass. Dec. 6, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a Black woman who is over the age of 60 and a former nurse for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) brought claims against MIT, alleging racial discrimination and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She contends her white female supervisor targeted and bullied her and treated her differently than her white colleagues. Plaintiff alleges the supervisor used racial tropes and described Black employees as “rough and tough.” Plaintiff also claims she was denied benefits and opportunities such as conference attendance and that she was removed from a working group without explanation. Plaintiff also avers that her supervisor retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave by sending a negative job performance email with numerous fabrications and assigned work for completion during leave, which ultimately resulted in plaintiff’s inability to return to her position at MIT. In allowing her claims of racial discrimination to proceed, the court found that plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to demonstrate a possible hostile work environment. It dismissed the disparate treatment claims, reasoning that plaintiff’s allegation of being denied conference attendance was insufficient to materially alter her conditions of employment. Finally, although the court found plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim was misplead since she was not denied leave, it reasoned that her allegations regarding the job performance email and assignment of tasks to complete during FMLA leave, were “more disruptive than a mere inconvenience” and considering the purported proximity to plaintiff’s FMLA request, could evidence causation in support of a claim of retaliation for taking protected leave. Thus, while noting that the allegations were sparse, the court found them adequate to proceed under a retaliation theory.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation
Date:
12/13/2024
Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers Coll., Columbia Univ. (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 5, 2024)
Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a Muslim migrant from Bosnia who is over the age of 40 and a non-tenure track faculty member at Teachers College, Columbia University, brought claims against the College for religious discrimination under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and NYCHRL, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and NYCHRL alleging the College rejected her efforts to obtain tenure due to her religion and age, and because of her prior complaints of discrimination on those bases. Plaintiff contends she has been employed by the College for over a decade, published on numerous issues, and obtained multi-million-dollar grants for the College. She claims that although the College’s president and other leaders agreed that she is qualified for a tenure-track role, her applications have repeatedly been rejected, and that she unsuccessfully applied for a tenure-track position in 2012, 2013, and twice in 2024. She claims she communicated with colleagues about applying for positions in 2021 and 2022 but was discouraged from applying after hearing disparaging remarks about her age. Plaintiff alleges that while her 2012 application was pending, her supervisor asked around about her Muslim faith, and the position was ultimately awarded to a candidate who is not Muslim. She avers that the Department Chair told her that her Muslim background “doomed” her chances of ever obtaining tenure, and that overall, the College has a culture of anti-Muslim bias. Plaintiff alleges that after she filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the College retaliated against her by (1) disinviting her from a symposium at which she was scheduled to speak, (2) lowering her wages, and (3) denying her tenure-track request. The court found plaintiff’s allegation that her supervisor said she was “not a spring chicken” and her subjective belief that the supervisor “preferred to hire someone ‘young’ who had ‘youth’ and ‘energy’” were insufficient to maintain claims for age discrimination since plaintiff did not actually apply for the position. On the other hand, it allowed the religious discrimination claims to proceed, reasoning that being disinvited and excluded from a prominent speaking role at a symposium was a materially adverse employment action when paired with plaintiff’s allegations that College leaders made anti-Muslim remarks. The court permitted the retaliation claims to move forward based on plaintiff’s allegations that (1) mere months elapsed between her religious discrimination complaint and the rejection of her dual requests for tenure-track and tenured positions, (2) although she was eligible for a salary increase, her wages were reduced, and (3) her invitation to speak at the symposium was revoked a week after she filed litigation.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation

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.