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:
Schweyen v. Univ. of Montana-Missoula (D. Mont. Oct. 31, 2023)
Order granting the University’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former head coach of the women’s basketball team at the University of Montana-Missoula, brought a discrimination claim against the University after it declined to renew her contract following multiple seasons of poor team performance and complaints about her purportedly intimidating coaching style, including from student-athletes who planned to transfer from the University. Plaintiff alleged that her performance was evaluated more harshly than male coaches. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court found that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that the University’s dissatisfaction with her performance was pretextual, noting that she was unable to identify male comparators who were the subject of similar complaints and that allegations of disparate treatment between men’s and women’s teams were insufficient to create an inference of discriminatory animus in the decision not to renew her contract.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Thomas v. Auburn Univ. (M.D. Ala. Nov. 1, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Director of Academic Support Services for student-athletes at Auburn University, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after he was terminated for waiting more than a year, in violation of NCAA compliance rules, to report that he suspected a student-athlete’s grade was changed inappropriately. After plaintiff received a “marginal” rating in his annual performance evaluation, he complained to a Human Resources generalist that he had been treated unfairly and filed an EEOC charge alleging discrimination and hostile work environment. He explained that he only reported his concern regarding the grade change after he began to suspect that his knowledge of it was related to what he perceived as hostile treatment. The court granted summary judgment to the University on his discrimination claim finding that his supervisors who did not believe the grade change was inappropriate were not adequate comparators and that he failed to present a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim also failed because he offered nothing to connect his termination to his EEOC charge or complaints he filed months earlier with HR.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | RetaliationDate:
Wallace v. Mary Baldwin Univ. (W.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a full-time employee of the American Shakespeare Center (ASC) taught a summer theater course at Mary Baldwin University as a part of a partnership between ASC and the University. She brought discrimination claims against the University after it discovered she had a consensual relationship with an employee, which it deemed inappropriate and thus declined to offer her a contract for the summer of 2019. After not running the course in 2020, the University also initially declined to offer her a contract for the summer of 2021, but changed course when plaintiff retained counsel. Plaintiff, however, rejected the offer to teach. In granting the University’s motion to dismiss, the court found that plaintiff’s claims as to 2019 were time-barred. Turning to her claims as to 2021, the court ruled that both her failure to hire or rehire claim and her disparate treatment claim failed because she, in fact, was offered a contract.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Terrell v. Ala. State Univ. (M.D. Ala. Oct. 30, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Senior Associate Athletic Director of Internal Operations at Alabama State University, brought pay discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after a new Athletic Director eliminated her position in favor of a new Senior Associate Athletic Director/Chief of Staff role for which one of the AD’s former direct reports was hired. Plaintiff was also designated as the Senior Woman Administrator, though she did not receive the additional compensation the University had earmarked in its budget for the function. The court granted summary judgment to the University on her Equal Pay Act claim, finding that plaintiff failed to identify proper comparators, and her assertion that two male employees received the same salary for less work was insufficient to show that they were paid more for equal work. It granted summary judgment to the University on both her retaliation and Title IX discrimination claims, ruling that her challenges to the wisdom of the University’s proposed reorganization and budget process fell short of raising questions of pretext.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Florance v. Barnett (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023)
Order affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former Indiana University School of Medicine student, brought due process claims against multiple University officials related to student loan collections. Plaintiff took a student loan through a program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Later, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), rated him as having a permanent and total disability. As he appeared to be gainfully employed and did not meet the statutory requirements for cancelation, the University declined to recommend cancelation of the loan and initiated collections proceedings against him. After plaintiff disputed HHS’s initial denial of his request for cancelation, HHS canceled his loan, and the University dismissed the collections case. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, the Seventh Circuit held that he did not have a protected interest in loan cancellation since under the HHS loan program whether a borrower qualifies for cancelation due to a disability is a discretionary determination left to HHS, not an entitlement determined by the VA’s disability rating.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
OCR Resolution Agreement with Taft College re: response to discrimination based on gender identity (Oct. 19, 2023)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and Taft College resolving an investigation into the University’s response to allegations college employees harassed a student who is transgender through sex stereotyping and misgendering. Through the resolution agreement, the College committed to revising its Title IX policies and procedures; providing written guidance and training to its Title IX Coordinators, administrators, and staff; additional reporting and monitoring; and providing reimbursement to the student for expenses related to counseling and therapy. A related Resolution Letter summarized the findings of OCR’s investigation.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation DiscriminationDate:
ACE Database on Post-SFFA v. Harvard & UNC Decision Resource: Admissions and Beyond (Oct. 16, 2023)
Database from the American Council on Education (ACE) of Post-SFFA v. Harvard & UNC Decision Resources. This new website will house “a variety of external articles, tools, research, analyses, and other materials that may be of interest” as institutions consider their policies, practices, and initiatives following the Supreme Court’s decision.
Topics:
Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students
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.