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:
OCR Resolution Agreement with Drexel University re: Title VI Compliance (July 31, 2024)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Drexel University resolving a complaint that it responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted (1) thirty-five reports/complaints concerning alleged harassment and/or discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry from October 2022 through January 2024 and (2) that “OCR recognizes that the University took important steps to address a possible hostile environment at the campus.” Through the Agreement, the University agreed to review its policies and procedures; continue to provide training to employees and provide training to all faculty, staff, and students; provide OCR with documentation of the University’s spring 2024 and winter 2025 climate survey results as well as the University’s response to each report of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of shared ancestry for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years and information regarding its investigations of reports of alleged discrimination for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 academic years.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Arkansas v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (E.D. Mo. July 24, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, as well as A.F., a minor resident of Arkansas, challenged the Department’s new Final Rule on Title IX and sought preliminary injunction, asserting that it is contrary to law, exceeds the Department’s statutory authority, and is arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs assert that the Rule is inconsistent with the meaning of “sex” in Title IX, impermissibly expands the standard for harassment beyond the controlling precedent in Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (1999), and impermissibly expands the definition of sex-based harassment to include “discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” In granting the injunction, the court found plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that (1) it exceeds the meaning of Title IX to define discrimination on the basis of gender identity as a form of sex discrimination; (2) the Department’s new “severe or pervasive” standard for harassment for administrative enforcement cannot be squared with the “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” standard the Supreme Court adopted for private actions under Title IX in Davis; and (3) the Department’s “interpretation of sex in combination with its definition of sexual harassment” may unconstitutionally chill speech in areas such as the use of pronouns. The injunction prohibits defendants from enforcing the Final Rule with respect to schools affected by the order.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Beuca v. Wash. State Univ. (9th Cir. July 18, 2024) (unpub.)
Memorandum reversing dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff, a former medical student employed by Washington State University and completing a residency at Providence Regional Medical Center, brought discrimination claims against the University after it declined to grant him a religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination requirement and terminated him, even though the Center had granted the exemption. In dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, the district court held that (1) plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory because he alleged no facts as to the nature of his sincerely held religious belief or when or how he had requested the exemption from the University and (2) the University successfully asserted undue hardship because permitting plaintiff to work in a hospital without a vaccination posed an increased risk to patients of COVID-19 exposure. After the case was dismissed, the Supreme Court decided Groff v. DeJoy, holding “that showing ‘more than a de minimis coast,’ as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII.” In reversing dismissal with prejudice, the Ninth Circuit held, “[o]n this record at this stage, we cannot take into account ‘all relevant factors’ as Groff requires, and, therefore, cannot rule as a matter of law that Beuca’s request constituted an undue hardship.”
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
U.S. Dep’t of Education Guidance Pointers for Implementation of Title IX Regulations (July 24, 2024)
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Guidance 2024 Title IX Regulations: Pointers for Implementation – July 2024. The document contains a list of “key components of the 2024 Title IX Regulations” for schools to consider in anticipation of the regulations taking effect on August 1, 2024. The document also contains a header noting the effect of federal court orders enjoining the Department from enforcing the 2024 Final Rule.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Kansas v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (D. Kan. July 19, 2024)
Memorandum and Order denying Defendants’ Motion for Partial Stay. Plaintiffs, the states of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, three organizations with student members in the plaintiff states and beyond, and one female middle school student from Oklahoma, sought to enjoin the Title IX Final Rule, alleging that the Department impermissibly defined “sex discrimination” to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court enjoined the entire rule as to the plaintiff States, the individual plaintiff, and all schools attended by individual members of the plaintiff organizations or their minor children. On July 15, 2024, the court released a 26-page Notice of List of Colleges & Universities by Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United listing institutions that are now subject to the injunction, including hundreds in states where the final regulations are not otherwise enjoined. Defendants moved for partial stay to limit the scope of the injunction to the members of the organizations as of the date the injunction was entered and to apply only to certain provisions concerning discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In denying the motion, though the court originally “did not specifically identify whether it applied to prospective members of the Plaintiff Organization,” it concluded “that all of the Plaintiff Organizations’ members, current and prospective, are entitled to the relief ordered.” It noted that “[s]upplements to the original notice may be appropriate as the case progresses.” In declining to limit the injunction only to the provisions regarding gender identity, the court cited Defendants’ interlocutory appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Beny v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents (E.D. Mich. Jul. 17, 2024)
Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of law at the University of Michigan who is African American and has been a critic of what she perceived as inequitable practices, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and a law school Dean after she was disciplined for repeated allegedly threatening, unprofessional, and disruptive communications to faculty and staff, suspended from teaching, and made ineligible for various benefits after she was found to have abandoned her duties and retaliated against students in response to anonymous student complaints related to her teaching. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court found plaintiff’s claims all failed at the pretext stage because she did not dispute the nature of her communications, for which she had been the subject of multiple threat assessments, and failed to show that the University’s explanation for her suspension, which relied primarily on her abandonment of her class, was the result of an inappropriate attention to her actions.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin (W.D. Tex. July 15, 2024)
Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. Plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, sued the University of Texas at Austin in July 2020, alleging that the University’s admissions policies impermissibly consider race in violation of Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. After the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard-UNC, the University revised its admissions process to eliminate consideration of race and ethnicity as factors in admissions decisions and “created new processes to train and supervise its admissions officers and employees to ensure that they do not consider race or ethnicity as a factor in the admissions process.” In granting dismissal for mootness, the court held that this policy is lawful. It further held that because the policy change was compelled by law, the voluntary cessation doctrine does not apply and the assertion that the “requested injunctive relief impedes mootness is unavailing.” It also held that because “nothing in the record indicates that UT Austin has any intention of reverting to its prior admissions practices,” issuing an injunction barring them from doing so “would be nonsensical.”
Topics:
Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | StudentsDate:
Executive Order 14124: White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions (July 17, 2024)
Executive Order 14124: White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). The Executive Order establishes within the Department of Education the White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Hispanic-Serving Institutions. The Initiative will advance its policy objectives through identifying and promoting available Federal resources and programs, identifying best practices, and coordinating and aligning efforts and resources.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & DiversityDate:
Texas v. United States (N.D. Tex. July 11, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the state of Texas and two professors, challenged the Department of Education’s new Title IX Final Rule and sought preliminary injunction, alleging that it exceeds the statutory authority of Title IX, is arbitrary and capricious, and violates the First Amendment. In granting the injunction, the court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that (1) the Department’s extension of the definition of sex-based discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity exceeds statutory authority under Title IX and is arbitrary and capricious; (2) the Final Rule’s ambiguity as to whether “misgendering” creates a hostile environment or is sex-based harassment would chill the professors’ protected speech in violation of the First Amendment; (3) the requirement that Texas provide insurance coverage for abortions in violation of its own law is arbitrary and capricious; and (4) several provisions on grievance procedures are arbitrary and capricious in their departure from due process, including permitting a single-investigator model, ambiguity as to whether schools must give parties access to evidence, and making live hearings and questioning optional. The injunction is limited to the state of Texas and the two individual plaintiffs.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Kansas v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (D. Kan. July 2, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the states of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, three organizations with student members in the plaintiff states and beyond, and one female middle school student from Oklahoma, sought to enjoin the Title IX Final Rule, alleging that the Department impermissibly defined “sex discrimination” to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims that (1) the definition is inconsistent with the meaning of “sex” in the statute; (2) the Department violated the major questions doctrine by attempting to regulate on an issue of vast economic and political significance without clear statutory authority; (3) it violated the Spending Clause because Congress had not put recipients on notice that sex discrimination includes gender identity; (4) the Final Rule is impermissibly vague and overboard because it subjects the plaintiff organizations’ members to potential investigation and discipline for expressing their beliefs about gender identity and transgender issues, thereby likely chilling their speech; and (5) the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious. The court enjoined the entire rule as to the plaintiff States, the individual plaintiff, and all schools attended by individual members of the plaintiff organizations or their minor children. The plaintiff organizations have until July 15, 2024, to file notice in the record of the schools their members attend.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
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.