Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Gross v. Univ. of Toledo (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2026)

    Opinion Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former faculty member and DEI Officer for the University of Toledo, brought Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against the university, alleging the university failed to address his complaints of discriminatory conduct from his coworkers, and that he resigned in “utter frustration” after receiving a letter terminating his contract. In denying the university’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff was timely in exhausting his administrative remedies, finding that the university’s January 2024 termination letter did not constitute a final adverse employment action for purposes of triggering the 300-day EEOC filing period because (1) the letter stated that plaintiff’s Department Chair could reverse the decision, and (2) the termination was contingent on whether plaintiff “modified his behavior.” Instead, the court found that the operative adverse action occurred at the time of plaintiff’s resignation, which the court determined to be a constructive discharge based on the allegations in his complaint, including that (1) his complaints of discrimination were ignored; (2) he was discouraged from complaining further; and (3) the discriminatory conduct kept him from performing his assigned duties.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Polk v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Schs. (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Denial of Plaintiff’s Request for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a former substitute teacher for Montgomery County Public Schools, sued the Montgomery County Board of Education alleging violations of Title VII and First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights, after her request for a religious accommodation from the board’s preferred pronoun policy was denied. While the district court allowed plaintiff’s Title VII claim to proceed, it dismissed her First Amendment claims and denied her motion for a preliminary injunction. In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that plaintiff’s free speech claim failed because the challenged speech fell within a teacher’s official duties under Garcetti v. Ceballos and was not constitutionally protected. The court further found that plaintiff’s free exercise claim failed because the board’s policy was a neutral, generally applicable rule that survived rational basis review under the framework articulated by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

  • Date:

    EEOC Rescinds Harassment Enforcement Guidance (Jan. 23, 2026)

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which was updated in 2024. In rescinding the guidance, the EEOC Chair cited concerns that the section on gender identity and sexual orientation, which cited Bostock, overstepped the agency’s authority. Additionally, the Chair explained that Executive Order 14168 “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” expressly directed the agency to rescind the guidance.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

  • Date:

    American Association of University Professors, et al., v. Marco Rubio, et al., (D. Mass. Jan. 22, 2026)

    Annotated Judgment Vacating Defendants’ Enforcement Policy. Following a September ruling that the government’s enforcement policy implementing Executive Orders 14161 and 14188, violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the court issued an annotated judgment, declaring the enforcement policy “OF NO EFFECT, VOID, ILLEGAL, SET ASIDE, AND VACATED.” Further, pursuant to its equitable powers, the court imposed a “remedial sanction” that allows affected noncitizen members of the plaintiffs’ organizations to challenge adverse immigration actions, shifting the burden to the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that such actions were not retaliatory or were otherwise lawful, while automatically staying removal during litigation.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    Faculty, Alumni, & Students Opposed to Racial Preferences v. Northwestern University, et al., (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2026)

    Opinion Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a non-profit membership organization formed to “restor[e] meritocracy in academia and fight[] race and sex preferences that subordinate academic merit to so-called diversity considerations,” sued Northwestern law school, Northwestern Law Review, and several law school administrators and faculty under Title VI, Title IX, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that they discriminated against heterosexual, cisgender, white men. The court dismissed the majority of plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing, finding that plaintiff (1) did not have any members who were eligible to apply as candidates for entry-level positions, (2) failed to identify any faculty member that was affected by discriminatory promotions, retention, discipline, or compensation, and (3) did not have any members applying to the law review and plaintiff’s theory that faculty members would be harmed indirectly through biased student editors was too speculative. Although plaintiff had standing to bring claims pertaining to the lateral faculty hiring process, the court held those claims failed on the merits. While the court agreed that plaintiff’s members could face a “competitive disadvantage,” it rejected plaintiff’s argument that this disadvantage constituted an adverse employment action. All claims were dismissed without prejudice.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment

  • Date:

    Davis v. Univ. of Toledo (6th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Summary Judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff, the former Chief Human Resources Officer for the University of Toledo, sued the university under Title VII for race discrimination and retaliation after she was terminated based on poor performance and was subsequently replaced by two white administrators. The district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, finding (1) plaintiff’s race discrimination claim failed because she was unable to demonstrate pretext and (2) her retaliation claim failed because she had not exhausted her administrative remedies with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to show the university’s stated reason for termination was pretextual, given the record of plaintiff’s significant and sustained performance deficiencies, compliance failures, mishandling of a collective bargaining agreement, hiring delays, and high turnover among Human Resources leadership.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    American Federation of Teachers, et al., v. U.S. Department of Education, et al. (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)

    The Department of Education dropped its appeal of an August 2025 federal court ruling that blocked the Department’s February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter and a related requirement that school districts certify they do not engage in “illegal DEI” practices. With this withdrawal, the district court’s decision will stand.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Due Process | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    University of Pennsylvania Response in Opposition to EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Action (Jan. 20, 2026)

    In November, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the University of Pennsylvania to enforce a subpoena in an ongoing workplace harassment investigation which seeks “lists of employees that reveal their Jewish faith or ancestry, associations with Jewish organizations, affiliation with Jewish studies, participation in programming for the Jewish community and/or de-anonymized responses to surveys on antisemitism, alongside their personal home addresses, phone numbers, and emails.” The university’s motion asks the court to deny the EEOC’s request noting that (1) the request does not satisfy the criteria for judicial enforcement and is unreasonably burdensome; (2) the privacy interests of the university’s employees outweigh the EEOC’s need for access; and (3) the request demands information that is not within the university’s possession, custody, or control.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Council for Opportunity in Education v. Department of Education, et al., (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, the Council for Opportunity in Education, sued the Department of Education for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a preliminary injunction after the Department cancelled more than 100 DEI-related grants and denied new grant applications. The court found that the Department likely violated federal law in denying new grant applications and discontinuing existing grants because its decisions were impermissibly vague, inadequately explained, and likely arbitrary and capricious. The court also found that the Department failed to follow required statutory procedures prior to terminating funding and wrongfully applied its anti-DEI policies retroactively and without notice-and-comment. After determining that plaintiff’s member institutions faced imminent and irreparable harm, the court granted the injunction, enjoining the grant denials and discontinuations as to the identified COE member institutions, and further ordered the Department to reconsider grants that were either denied or discontinued last year.

    Topics:

    Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research

  • Date:

    Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Initiates 18 Title IX investigations (Jan. 14, 2026)

    The Department of Education announced its Office for Civil Rights has initiated 18 Title IX investigations into educational institutions, three of which are institutions of higher education. The Department wrote that the complaints that led to the investigations are based on allegations that the institutions “maintain polices or practices that discriminate on the basis of sex by permitting students to participate in sports based on their ‘gender identity,’ not biological sex.”

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | 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.

Register