Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
4/12/2024
Wood v. Fla. Dep’t of Educ. (N.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2024)
Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The lead Plaintiff, a public high school teacher who is a transgender woman and prefers (but ceased using) she/her pronouns, sought preliminary injunction, on the basis of Title VII and the First Amendment, against a Florida Department of Education policy providing for every K-12 institution that “a person’s sex is an immutable biological trait and that it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex.” The court found plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her Title VII claim, as the requirement that she be referred to as “Teacher,” rather than “Ms.,” was not an adverse employment action, and the record was insufficient to demonstrate the likelihood of success on a hostile work environment theory. Turing to her First Amendment claim, the court enjoined enforcement of the policy against plaintiff, finding that (1) plaintiff’s statement of preference of pronouns was the highly personal, self-referential speech of a citizen that could not be confused with a government-created message (following the U.S. Supreme Court’s “practical inquiry” regarding the religious expression in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District); (2) even though highly personal, the preference of pronouns is a publicly-oriented expression on a matter of “undisputed ‘passionate political and social debate;’” and (3) the State provided no evidence that the use of plaintiff’s pronouns would impede her official duties or adversely impact school operations to justify enforcing the viewpoint discriminatory prohibition in favor of the State’s preferred opinion on pronouns.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Date:
4/12/2024
Royan v. Chi. State Univ. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor it the University. Plaintiff, a former Doctor of Pharmacy Student at Chicago State University who had been diagnosed with clinical depression and an eating disorder, brought discrimination and due process claims against the University after she abandoned her first attempt at her clinical rotation following a dispute with her supervisors over her progress and subsequently failed a remedial rotation. Plaintiff further alleged that the then acting dean violated her due process rights by moving slowly in adjudicating her appeal. The acting dean, whose responsibilities concluded at the end of the month in which plaintiff submitted her appeal letter through counsel, forwarded the letter to university counsel, and the new dean denied the appeal, finding the program had followed its policies. In granting summary judgment to the University on her disability discrimination claim, the court found that she failed to establish that she was a qualified individual due to her failed rotations and that she would otherwise be unable to demonstrate pretext. In granting summary judgment in favor of the former dean on plaintiff’s due process claim, the court found that the former dean was not obligated to resolve her appeal before he left the role and was not responsible for the adjudication thereafter.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Students
Date:
4/12/2024
OCR Resolution Agreement with Hinds Comm. Coll. re: Pregnancy Discrimination (Apr. 11, 2024)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Hinds Community College resolving a pregnancy discrimination investigation. OCR investigated a complaint filed by a student alleging that the College discriminated against her by not providing her with academic adjustments during her pregnancy and that the College did not respond promptly to her complaint that her instructors and program supervisor subjected her to harassment based on her pregnancy. Through the Resolution Agreement, the College agreed to (1) review and revise its practices, policies, and procedures for providing adjustments for pregnant students; (2) update its website and other areas for disseminating information; (3) train all full-time faculty and relevant staff on the Title IX rights of pregnant students; (4) conduct surveys to assess the effectiveness of trainings; (5) develop a tracking system for pregnancy-related adjustments for students; (6) compile a list of all pregnancy-related requests for adjustments; and (7) reimburse the complainant for tuition and related mandatory costs associated with repeating the final semester of her program.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Pregnancy Discrimination | Sex Discrimination
Date:
4/5/2024
Update: DOJ Letter to Univ. of Md. Balt. Re: Title IX Investigation (Apr. 3, 2024)
Letter from the Department of Justice to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County re: Title IX Investigation. The Letter details the findings of the Department’s investigation into allegations that the University responded inadequately to notice that the head coach of its Swimming and Diving Team subjected student-athletes to a hostile environment, unwanted touching, and other sexual harassment. The Letter also notes the University’s commitment through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement, which is subject to a state-mandated approval process, to enhance its Title IX Office, provide targeted training and support to student-athletes, and provide financial relief to certain student-athletes. Update: On April 3, 2024, the Department and the University entered a Settlement Agreement detailing new policy and compliance requirements and providing that the University will pay up to $4,140,000 in financial relief to impacted student-athletes.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination
Date:
4/5/2024
Puentes v. Union Coll. (N.D. N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024)
Memorandum-Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Union College, brought discrimination, contract, and multiple tort claims against the College after she was unenrolled for noncompliance with its policy that all students must receive a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccination. Plaintiff requested an exemption, citing her “biblical beliefs,” an alleged severe reaction to her second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and immunity from a prior infection. When local media reported that plaintiff had been expelled, the College denied it was an expulsion and declined to discuss more than its general policy. Plaintiff alleged, however, that members of the Board of Trustees questioned the truthfulness of her account. The court dismissed her discrimination claims, finding only broad and cursory allegations. It dismissed her contract and promissory estoppel claims as time-barred under New York’s four-month statute of limitations for challenging determinations of public bodies and administrative agencies. In dismissing her negligence claim, the court declined to find that the College assumed a special duty not to subject her to a risk of a reaction to a vaccine by virtue of its supervision of her health through her visits to the College health clinic, citing the limited scope of duties for universities and New York’s prior rejection of the in loco parentis doctrine. It dismissed her libel and slander claims, finding no allegation of special damages or per se actionability. Finally, although dismissal of the breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and negligence per se claims was with prejudice as defendants sought, the court – while expressing skepticism re the likelihood of success – allowed that plaintiff might replead her other claims.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation
Date:
4/5/2024
Buck-Yael v. Wash. Univ. (E.D. Mo. Mar. 28, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former IT employee at Washington University who had receive religious accommodations to practice her Orthodox Jewish Faith, brought discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims against the University after a new supervisor withdrew her accommodation to use unpaid leave rather than vacation time for religious holidays and terminated her following warnings about workplace interactions and sending unauthorized emails. In dismissing her discrimination claim, the court found plaintiff had not alleged that her termination or any discipline were connected to her failure to comply with any employment requirement conflicting with her bona fide religious belief. The court, however, found her allegation regarding the withdrawn accommodations, together with assertions that her supervisor repeatedly berated her in front of colleagues and filed allegedly false warning letters, were sufficient to permit her hostile environment harassment claim to proceed. The court similarly found her assertion that she was terminated two weeks after she cited experiencing religious discrimination and harassment in appealing the warnings sufficient to permit her retaliation claim to proceed.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation
Date:
4/5/2024
Thomas v. Weber State Univ. (D. Utah Mar. 29, 2024)
Order and Memorandum Decision granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff earned her undergraduate degree at Weber State University, worked for a University center for two years, and then completed a master’s degree at the University. She brought Title IX deliberate indifference claims against the University, alleging that she was sexually abused on various occasions while she was a private therapy patient of a psychology professor (the Therapist) at the University who was also twice her course instructor. A University Title IX investigation found that the Therapist more likely than not engaged in behavior that was unwelcome and presented a clear conflict of interest. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court rejected two theories of liability. First, it found that neither (1) a complaint that the Therapist graded a female student unfairly, nor (2) a complaint of abuse of a male patient in another state, which was filed 15 years after the fact and which the University’s Strategic Threat Assessment and Response (STAR) team found not credible, nor (3) an incident in which the director of the counseling center advised the Therapist not to touch patients during breathing exercises was sufficient to put the University on notice of a substantial risk of abuse. Second, it found that neither (1) an adjunct professor, who never supervised the Therapist, nor (2) the director of the counseling center, who was a member of the STAR team but who lacked disciplinary authority over the Therapist, was an “appropriate person” whose individual knowledge could impute institutional Title IX liability upon the University.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination
Date:
4/5/2024
Doe v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. (W.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former graduate student in physics at Virginia Tech who is Iranian, brought Title IX, due process, and retaliation claims against the University after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff also alleged that (1) his graduate advisor received a large grant based on research plaintiff had performed in the lab and that his advisor used the funds instead to support a female student with whom he had an inappropriate relationship, and (2) after he reported the behavior, his advisor withheld certification of his master’s degree and made conditions in the lab harsh in an effort to get him to resign from the program. In permitting his due process claim to proceed, the court found that by citing specific provisions of the University’s Code of Conduct and departures from those procedures plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a deprivation of a property interest without due process. Turning to his allegations regarding the conduct of his graduate advisor, the court found plaintiff’s assertions of rude behavior in the lab insufficient to allege a hostile educational environment, but it found assertions regarding the allocation of the grant funds sufficient to him to proceed on his Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
3/29/2024
Gardner v. Kutztown Univ. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2024)
Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured associate professor at Kutztown University who takes immunosuppressive medications to reduce the risk of permanent blindness from an incurable eye condition, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after they denied her request for a remote work accommodation for Fall 2021 in favor of a blanket policy that any change to course modality would present an undue hardship to the University. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her intentional discrimination, failure to accommodate, and interference claims, finding no evidence in the record that the University considered plaintiff’s individual circumstances in applying the preferred blanket policy. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding no reasonable jury could conclude that the University’s requirement that plaintiff submit additional medical documentation after she filed her suit was so severe as to dissuade an objectively reasonable employee from requesting an accommodation.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation
Date:
3/29/2024
Zow v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C. (E.D. N.C. Mar. 26, 2024)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Chief of Staff to the Chancellor and Assistant Secretary to the Board at North Carolina Central University, brought First Amendment retaliation and other claims against the University after he was terminated in October 2021 for failure to comply with a requirement that unvaccinated employees who travel domestically self-quarantine and test negative for COVID-19 before returning to work. Plaintiff alleged that his termination was in retaliation for his participation on the University’s COVID-19 Operations Continuity Committee where he opposed the mandatory vaccination policy that was eventually adopted. In dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff’s opposition to the proposed policy, which included his belief that the policy would violate federal and state laws, was not protected activity because it occurred during the normal course of his ordinary duties; and moreover, plaintiff claimed that in response to his concerns his supervisor paused adoption of the policy to seek further legal review. The court dismissed his ADA retaliation claim as untimely and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | 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.