Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

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 Employment

  • Date:

    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 | Retaliation

  • Date:

    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 Employment

  • Date:

    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 Employment

  • Date:

    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 | Students

  • Date:

    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 Discrimination

  • Date:

    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

  • Date:

    Taylor Haynie v. Wash. Univ. Sch. of Med. Div. of Infectious Diseases, (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2023)

    Order granting summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former Research Nurse Coordinator in the Clinical Research Unit of the Washington University School of Medicine’s Division of Infectious diseases, who is an African American female, brought Title VII race discrimination and retaliation against the University after it eliminated her position. Plaintiff was hired for a grant-funded position, and her offer letter stated “your employment will be contingent upon continued receipt of these grant funds.” Plaintiff received poor ratings in her first two annual evaluations after she got into a verbal altercation with a colleague during which she raised her voice and a hand, five patients complained about her venipuncture skills and requested she not draw their blood in the future, and errors were found in untimely submitted patient charts. Between the unsatisfactory evaluations, plaintiff complained of race-based discrimination as she and two African American female colleagues were forced to share an office referred to as the “closet.” An investigation found no evidence of discrimination, and she was offered a new office. Plaintiff also challenged the performance evaluation score in the second evaluation, it was adjusted slightly upward. But after she confronted a co-worker and left the latter in tears, plaintiff was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP), which she asserted was either retaliatory or discriminatory, claims an investigation determined were unfounded. Ultimately, she was furloughed along with 1,300 employees, and her position was eliminated due to cost cutting during the coronavirus pandemic. The court reasoned that plaintiff’s failure to meet the legitimate expectations of the University coupled with the fiscal impacts of the pandemic were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons to eliminate her position. The court found significant that the University gave plaintiff the opportunity to course correct, and thus dismissed her claim for race-based discrimination. Likewise, the court found a one-year gap between plaintiff’s first complaint and the elimination of her position did not establish sufficient causal nexus and dismissed her retaliation claim.  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Eisenhauer v. Culinary Inst. of Am. (2nd Cir. Oct. 17, 2023)

    Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part and remanding summary judgment in favor of the Institute. Plaintiff, a female professor at the Culinary Institute of America, brought pay discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the New York Labor Law against the Institution, noting that her pay was several thousand dollars less than that of a male instructor with a similar course load. The Institute’s compensation plan, based partly on a collective bargaining agreement, required fixed pay increases annually but did not provide for equity adjustments. Plaintiff asserted that a disparity based on different starting salaries did not satisfy the EPA’s “factor other than sex” defense because it was not job related. In affirming summary judgment to the Institute on plaintiff’s EPA claim, the Second Circuit held that the statutory language is unambiguous and does not require that the factor other than sex be job related. The court vacated and remanded on plaintiff’s New York Labor Law claim, however, noting that a January 2016 amendment expressly requiring that the factor be “job-related with respect to the position in question.” 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Lewis v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. (M.D. La. Oct. 17, 2023)

    Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the scope of a protective order regarding attorney-client privileged redactions in external investigations. Plaintiff, a Louisiana State University (LSU) Athletic Department employee, brought Title VII, Title IX, §1981, §1983, and RICO claims against the LSU Board of Supervisors and individual defendants based on conduct related to the conduct of former head football coach, Les Miles (Miles). In denying Plaintiff’s motion, the court reasoned that absent evidence of a prima facie case that defendants committed one of the three crimes alleged by plaintiff, the crime-fraud exception remained unavailable to pierce the veil of attorney-client privilege attendant to the redacted sections of a student complaint memo (Memo) detailing LSU’s review of allegations made by a student-employee against Miles, and outside counsel’s billing records. Specifically, the court ruled that outsourcing LSU’s investigatory obligations under Title IX to external counsel, did not convert an internal inquiry into allegations of Miles’ alleged conduct to an “official proceeding” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1512 (witness tampering). The court also found that under Louisiana state law (1) settling a student’s related civil claim was not public bribery, and (2) communication between counsel for LSU and Miles about the breadth of details in the Memo did not add up to factually false statements in public records, nor did the legal conclusion that Miles did not violate Title IX. 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Counsel | General Counsel | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

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