Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Bird v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (M.D. Ga. Sep. 26, 2023)

    Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former University Dual Enrollment Director, brought Title VII and IX claims for a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, as well as claims under Georgia’s Whistleblower Act. Plaintiff alleged that after she refused a hug from her supervisor in February of 2019, she was subject to a written reprimand, and her position was pretextually eliminated through a Reduction in Force (RIF) in November of 2020. The University asserted that plaintiff was reprimanded for sending a controversial programmatic email to external constituents, which upset University business partners and required presidential involvement to resolve, and that her position was eliminated due to COVID-era cost saving efforts at a period with low programmatic enrollment. In granting summary judgment to the University the court found that a single hug was insufficiently severe and/or pervasive, that the reprimand was not materially adverse as it resulted in no reduction in compensation, and that even if the latter were adverse that there was no casual between either the reprimand or the RIF, since plaintiff did not file an internal complaint until after she received notice of the RIF in July of 2020. The court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the Whistleblower claim. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    Howell v. Yale Univ. (D. Conn. Sep. 26, 2023)

    Ruling granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a small-business owner and principal in a minority owned LLC that contracted with Yale University to provide snow and ice removal services, brought contract, discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the University after a supervisor of landscaping and maintenance services directed racially derogatory statements at him and refused to honor the contract. The court dismissed plaintiff’s discrimination claim under §1981, finding he had not plausibly alleged that the University was a state actor or providing a public function. It permitted his IIED claim to proceed, finding that the supervisor’s taunts and hurtful comments, together with the repudiation of the contract, were sufficient to allege intent and extreme and outrageous conduct.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Mohamed v. George Wash. Univ. (D. D.C. Sep. 22, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee at George Washington University, brought Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference and retaliation claims against the University when he was terminated after he took extended leave but failed to submit required medical certifications following receipt of conditional approval for leave to care for his father in Italy. Plaintiff did not fly to Italy for more than a month after beginning leave and failed to respond to multiple calls and emails from the University over a period of several weeks. In granting summary judgment to the University on his FMLA interference claim, the court found that the University only provided him conditional approval for leave and warned him that he would not be covered if the medical certification was not submitted. Turning to his retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate pretext because the University started the termination process the day before he finally submitted the long-requested medical certification.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Russell v. Westchester Cmty. Coll. (S.D. N.Y. Sep. 21, 2023)

    Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at Westchester Community College, brought disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the College and multiple officials after it declined to offer her additional classes following a series of hostile and abusive interactions, including one in which she “berated, humiliated, and cursed at” a student she suspected of plagiarism. In granting summary judgment to the College on her discrimination claim, the court found that although plaintiff had been transported to an emergency room with complaints of an irregular heartbeat, her medical records did not reveal a diagnosis of a heart condition and discovery did not produce evidence that officials regarded her as disabled. Though plaintiff had complained of discrimination in multiple emails, the court further found that she was unable to establish either causation or pretext in either her discrimination or retaliation claims, noting a lack of evidence that anything other than the College’s dissatisfaction with her hostile conduct was the reason she was not reappointed.   

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Richardson v. Nw. Univ. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Partial Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former member of the cheerleading team at Northwestern University, brought Title IX, forced labor, forced-labor trafficking, sex trafficking, contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the University, athletics officials, and a deputy Title IX Coordinator, alleging that officials required female – but not male – cheerleaders to attend various fundraising events in their cheerleading uniforms where they knew the students would experience sexual harassment and assaults. The court permitted her forced labor and trafficking claims to proceed, finding that officials knew or should have known of the likely harassment and inappropriate touching when they planned events that (1) female cheerleaders would be required to attend in uniform, (2) the University benefitted financially, and (3) the prospect that the student might have to repay her scholarship and expenses related to cheerleading events if she left the team functioned sufficiently as a threat of harm. It also held that the allegation that plaintiff was “intentionally and repeatedly put … in situations where she would be sexually assaulted” was sufficient for her to proceed on her IIED claim. It dismissed her contract claims based on the University’s sexual misconduct policy, finding that its aspirational statements and reservation to the University of discretion in responding to allegations fell short of an unambiguous promise.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    Thomas v. E. Carolina Univ. (E.D. N.C. Sep. 21, 2023)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former head coach of the women’s volleyball team at East Carolina University (ECU), brought discrimination and retaliation claims against ECU after she was terminated for creating a “toxic” culture within her program. Plaintiff alleged that her termination was the result of complaints she raised about Title IX compliance in ECU’s athletics programs. In permitting her discriminatory discharge claim to proceed, the court found that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that she was a high-performing, experienced female coach who was replaced by a male coach with only one year of coaching experience at the collegiate level. It permitted her retaliation claim to proceed, finding that she plausibly alleged that (1) ECU departed from its usual practice and denied her team post-season play two weeks after she complained of gender bias against the volleyball program, and (2) an athletics official had solicited complaints about plaintiff from her players and promised an assistant coach would be promoted if plaintiff was fired.   

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    Mesbah v. Univ. of Louisville (W.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student and then postdoctoral researcher at the University of Louisville, brought harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII and Title IX against the University, alleging that a research supervisor made unwanted advances and then retaliated against her when she refused and complained to the program director.  The court permitted her Title VII harassment and retaliation claims to proceed, finding that the incidents she alleged were sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment and that continuation of the advances, along with other hostile behavior, after she complained to the program director was sufficient to allege retaliation.  In dismissing her Title IX deliberate indifference claim, the court noted that the University investigated her complaint and that allegations that the supervisor had harassed at least one other employee emerged only after the investigation.  Her Title IX retaliation claim failed because she had not alleged she engaged in any protected activity while she was a Ph.D. student when the events underlying her claim allegedly occurred.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Prater v. Trs. of Hamline Univ. of Minn. (D. Minn. Sep. 15, 2023)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former adjunct instructor in the Art and Digital Media Department at Hamline University, brought state-law religious discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the University after it declined to renew her contract following a campus controversy surrounding art she displayed over Zoom in her World Art class containing images of the Prophet Muhammad.  In permitting plaintiff to proceed on her religious discrimination claim, the court found she had sufficiently alleged that the University treated her differently than it would have treated her if she were Muslim.  It dismissed her retaliation claim, finding that her statement to the dean that not showing the images would be discriminatory because it would privilege the views of those who objected over the views of those who did not was insufficient to allege a statutorily protected report of discrimination.  Her defamation claim failed because assertions that her actions were “Islamophobic,” “disrespectful,” and “inappropriate” were nonactionable expressions of opinion.  Her IIED claim failed because plaintiff’s alleged distress resulted not from the alleged statements of University officials but from the subsequent media coverage.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Jackson v. Wright (5th Cir. Sep. 15, 2023)

    Opinion affirming denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a professor of music theory at the University of North Texas (UNT), is a leading scholar on the Austrian music theorist Heinrich Schenker.  He is also director of the Center for Schenkerian Studies and founding editor of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, both of which are housed at and supported by UNT.  After plaintiff contributed an article that proved controversial to a symposium in the Journal defending Schenker against charges of racism, University officials investigated the Journal’s editorial practices, removed plaintiff as editor, and suspended the Journal’s activities pending a national search for a new editor.  Plaintiff brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the UNT Regents in their individual capacities, alleging an ongoing violation of his First Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  In affirming denial of the Regents’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff’s claim against the Regents properly sought only prospective relief and that he had sufficiently alleged an ongoing violation that was fairly traceable to the Regents.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    DeVore v. Univ. of Ky. Bd. of Trs. (E.D. Ky. Sep. 18, 2023)

    Opinion & Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former employee at the University of Kentucky, brought a religious discrimination claim against the University after she was terminated for noncompliance with the University’s policy that employees either receive a COVID vaccine or submit to regular testing.  Plaintiff asserted that the University’s policy aimed to “manipulate [her] into taking the ‘vaccine’” and violated her “God-given rights to be able to choose what shall or shall not happen to [her] person.”  In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court held that plaintiff failed to “show that she holds a religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement,” finding instead that she had asserted “an isolated moral teaching” and that “granting [her] request would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless exclude for avoiding all unwanted obligations.”  The court further held that plaintiff’s proposed accommodation that the University permit her to work remotely or hire an additional employee would have created an undue hardship, noting (1) that because plaintiff was her department’s only administrative employee, her physical presence was necessary to performing the essential function of welcoming students and visitors, and (2) that the expense of a second salary for duplicate work was unreasonable, noting that plaintiff’s position was not filled after her departure and that the department was subsequently eliminated.  

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

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