Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    ACE Amicus Brief in Zhang v. Emory Univ. (Feb. 22, 2024)

    Amicus Brief from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 16 other higher education associations in Zhang v. Emory University. Plaintiffs-Appellants, the parents of a 17-year-old student at Emory University who died by suicide, brought negligence claims against the University alleging that it knew or should have known that their son was at risk of suicide. After permitting limited plausibility discovery, the district court granted the University’s motion to dismiss, finding conclusory an allegation that an instructor knew that the student appeared to be suicidal prior to when he passed away. Through this amicus brief, the associations ask the Eleventh Circuit to affirm dismissal and decline to find that a university may be liable “on a negligence-based theory for a student’s suicide where there are no well-pled facts showing that the university had any knowledge that the student was considering suicide or self-harm.” The brief argues that to impose such a duty would be both inconsistent with the expectation held even by students who matriculate before the age of 18 that they be treated as autonomous adults with protected privacy interests and would otherwise hinder the higher education community’s progress in removing stigma associated with seeking mental health care.

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Distressed & Suicidal Students | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Greig v. Tex. A&M Univ. Texarkana (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2024)

    Report and Recommendation to deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs at Texas A&M University Texarkana, proceeding pro se, brought a discrimination claim against the University after a new supervisor reduced his job responsibilities, gave him a “not meeting expectations” performance evaluation for the first time in his career, and told him to resign or face termination. Plaintiff alleged that this turn followed significant campus backlash to his decision not to discipline a student who was accused of using a racially offensive word months earlier during a trip to a mall with a fellow student with whom she had a history of interpersonal conflict. In recommending that his claim be permitted to proceed, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged “two times when either a supervisor or a faculty member suggested [he] should be replaced by a person of color or could not relate to students of color.” 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Bullock v. The Univ. of Tex. at Arlington (5th Cir. Feb. 15, 2024)

    Opinion reversing dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiff, a student at the University of Texas at Arlington who suffers from major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, brought a disability discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act against the University after a professor declined to apply her approved accommodations retroactively when her accommodation letter was initially sent to the incorrect email address, alleging that this resulted in lower grades for the semester, including one failing grade. Plaintiff originally filed her claim in state court, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the state appellate court affirmed. The federal district court dismissed the claim as time-barred, reasoning that the federal claim was filed more than 60 days after the state trial court dismissed the claim. In reversing and remanding, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court erred in starting the 60-day clock on the date of the trial court’s dismissal rather than 60 days after entry of the state appellate court’s judgement when its plenary power to alter its judgment expired and its judgment became final.   

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

  • Date:

    Monroe v. Fort Valley State Univ. (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2024)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former director of the Head Start program at Fort Valley State University, brought False Claims Act retaliation claims against the University after she was terminated five months into her tenure for taking actions without properly vetting them with senior leadership. In affirming dismissal of the claims, the Eleventh Circuit, aligning with the other circuits to have addressed the issue, found that Congress did not abrogate sovereign immunity in the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions and held that the Regents of the University System of Georgia function as an arm of the state in its administration of the Head Start program.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | False Claims Act (FCA) | Research | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Fedder v. Bloomsburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee in the mailroom at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania who had worked at the University for over 20 years, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education alleging that her supervisor engaged in a pattern of sexually suggestive and intimidating behavior, that after she twice complained to Human Resources and the Title IX Coordinator she faced increased harassment and was reprimanded, and that she was told she would be terminated if she did not improve the situation with him, which she asserted was constructive discharge. In permitting her discrimination claim to proceed, the court found plaintiff had plausibly alleged both a hostile work environment and circumstances suggesting she would not have been constructively discharged had she been a man. The court also permitted her retaliation claim to proceed, finding the close temporal proximity between her complaints and her only workplace discipline at the University sufficient to allege causation.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    Dai v. Le (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2024)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff, a former graduate student and graduate assistant at Louisiana Tech University, brought constitutional and contract claims against multiple University officials after she received negative feedback on a public presentation and a low grade in a related class, was terminated from her assistantship, and resigned from the program when she was unable to form a dissertation committee. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants on her First Amendment retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit rejected her assertion that an email she sent to those who had attended her presentation attempting to clarify her research methodology was a matter of public concern, finding that she offered no evidence of a widespread debate in the community on the topic. Turning to her due process claim, the court found that (1) her property interest in her assistantship was not unqualified because her offer letter provided it could be terminated early for unsatisfactory performance and (2) the dean provided sufficient process on her complaint over the termination by reviewing the materials she submitted, her paper, and presentation materials, and by speaking with faculty members before upholding the termination. In affirming the lower court’s decision on her contract claim, the court noted that the decision that plaintiff was not making satisfactory progress was an academic decision to be reviewed deferentially.   

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Students

  • Date:

    Davis v. Delta Coll. (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2024)

    Order granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former tenured professor of English at Delta College who is African American, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College and its former president after the then-president cited low student evaluations in denying her application for promotion to full professor. Two years later, the new president re-evaluated plaintiff’s application and granted the promotion with retroactive back pay. Plaintiff subsequently resigned from the College to pursue a career in social work. In granting summary judgment to the defendants on her discrimination claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to show disparate treatment since her comparators all received higher student evaluations than she did. Her retaliation claim failed because her promotion denial occurred more than a year after she had delivered a unionization petition to the president.   

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Fields v. Bd. of Trs. of Ga. Military Coll. (M.D. Ga. Jan. 31, 2024)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former assistant professor of natural sciences at the Georgia Military College Augusta campus who was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease, kidney failure, and anemia and who took immune-suppressing treatments, brought disability discrimination claims against the College after it denied his request to teach remotely and terminated his employment in January 2021. Plaintiff also taught as an adjunct in the College’s Global Online Learning College (GOLC) until 2016 when the Augusta campus director decided that faculty there could no longer teach for GOLC, preferring that they be available to assist students on the Augusta campus. In permitting his Rehabilitation Act claim to proceed, the court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff’s request to be reassigned to GOLC was a reasonable accommodation. It also found that since the College never informed Plaintiff that he needed to return to work and because officials offered multiple reasons for his termination, there was a dispute of material fact as to why he was terminated.   

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

  • Date:

    Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. The United States Mil. Acad. at W. Point (U.S. Feb. 2, 2024)

    Order denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appeal. Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., brought a Fifth Amendment claim against the United States Military Academy at West Point, the Department of Defense, and multiple officials, alleging that the use of racial classifications in West Point’s admissions process cannot satisfy strict scrutiny as considered and applied in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. The district court denied a preliminary injunction. In denying the application, the Supreme Court noted, “[t]he record before this Court is underdeveloped, and this order should not be construed as expressing any view on the merits of the constitutional question.”   

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Thomas v. Coppin State Univ. (D. Md. Jan. 25, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, who was in his first year as a tenure-track assistant professor at Coppin State University, brought discrimination and due process claims against the University after he was placed on paid administrative leave and notified that his appointment would not be renewed after the University received multiple allegations of workplace hostility against him. Plaintiff alleged that a dean and colleagues had been dismissive of his back issues and other health concerns and that officials had not provided support when he sought assistance addressing disruptive student behavior in his classroom. In dismissing his hostile work environment claim, the court found plaintiff had alleged insufficient facts to plead a severe or pervasive hostile environment. In dismissing his due process claim, the court noted that he received a notice of nonrenewal rather than a termination and that he failed to establish a property interest in anything beyond his one-year term appointment.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process

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