Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
9/22/2023
Tennin v. Coll. of Lake Cnty. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 18, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Director of Student Activities at the College of Lake County who is African American, brought race and age discrimination claims against the College and, under §1983, against his former supervisor, the Dean of Student Affairs, and one of his former subordinates, a Coordinator of Student Organizations and Programs. Plaintiff alleged that the Dean undermined his work and then disciplined him for the failures and that the Coordinator, whom the Dean hired after working with her at a different university and who babysat his children, provided the Dean with information about Plaintiff’s activities and even directed aspects of the alleged sabotage. The court dismissed plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims as time-barred. It permitted his §1983 claims against both the Dean and the Coordinator to proceed, finding he had sufficiently alleged the personal involvement of both in the alleged Constitutional deprivation.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
9/15/2023
Allen v. Benson (E.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2023)
Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Texas at Dallas, proceeding pro se, brought discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims against the University and multiple officials after she objected to the University’s COVID-19 testing requirement on religious grounds and was terminated after she exhausted available leave time. Plaintiff asserted that she practiced “faith-based decision making and not fear-based decision making” and that the University’s offer of a saliva test as an alternative to a nose swab was not an appropriate accommodation. Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court permitted her Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim to proceed against the University, holding that whether an accommodation of plaintiff’s beliefs would have imposed an undue hardship is a fact-intensive inquiry better resolved at the summary judgement stage or at trial. It dismissed her ADA claim for failure to allege she was a qualified individual with a disability.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
9/15/2023
Misenheimer v. Univ. of S.C. (D. S.C. Sep. 13, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is a graduate of the School of Visual Arts and Design (SVAD) at the University of South Carolina, who then became a SVAD technician and adjunct instructor. She brought multiple claims against the University and a tenured colleague, who had also been her instructor, alleging that he created a hostile environment and retaliated against her after she complained about his behavior. In adopting the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge on the University’s motion for summary judgment, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims, finding that evidence of plaintiff’s reports of harassing and retaliatory behavior by the colleague were sufficient to raise fact questions of a hostile environment and constructive discharge. The court also permitted her to proceed on her negligent supervision and retention and her contract claims with respect to the University’s enforcement of its policies. Her Title IX claims, however, were time-barred. In departing from a second Report and Recommendation on the colleague’s motion for summary judgment, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her tortious interference with a contract claim, finding sufficient evidence in the record suggesting that but for his behavior her contractual relationship with the University would have continued.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
9/15/2023
Gray v. Bd. of Trs. of the Ga. Military Coll. (M.D. Ga. Sep. 13, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Administrative Assistant at Georgia Military College, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College after her position was eliminated in June 2020 in a reduction in force (RIF), alleging that it eliminated her position because she had requested additional measures to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus due to her “underlying health conditions” and that it did not consider her for other open positions because she is African American. The court granted summary judgment to the College on her discrimination claim, finding that of the two positions plaintiff applied for one was filled by an African American and one remained unfilled for a year. In granting summary judgment to the College on her retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the court held that a “vague request for accommodations due to ‘underlying health conditions’” was insufficient to constitute protected activity.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation
Date:
9/15/2023
Locke v. N.C. State Univ. (E.D. N.C. Sep. 11, 2023)
Order granting the University’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former soccer player at North Carolina State University, brought Title IX claims against the University, alleging that between 2015 and 2017 the team trainer, who was also the University’s director of sports medicine, abused him sexually, including by directing him to shower in front of him and touching him inappropriately under the guise of performing a sports massage. After plaintiff reported the abuse to law enforcement in 2021, a Title IX investigation found that in early 2016 the head soccer coach notified the senior associate athletic director that he suspected the trainer was engaged in sexual grooming of male student-athletes. The trainer was moved to more administrative duties but remained with the University. In related cases, plaintiffs John Doe and John Doe 2 also made similar claims. In dismissing plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the court held the report of suspected sexual grooming was insufficient to allege that an official with the authority to take corrective measures had actual notice of the abuse.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
9/15/2023
Maramante v. Del. Tech. Cmty. Coll. (D. Del. Sep. 11, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a full-time 10-month science instructor and former Science Department Chair at Delaware Technical Community College who had taken FMLA leave to care for a son with a serious medical condition, brought FMLA interference and retaliation claims against the College after it rescinded her appointment as Department Chair upon her return from leave. The College cited that plaintiff had over-delegated her duties and attempted to have the Chair of the Medical Laboratory Technician Department conduct a blood draw from her son for medical testing. In adopting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, the Court agreed that there was (1) a factual dispute as to when the decision to demote plaintiff was made, and (2) a question of pretext raised by the fact that the other department chair, who had previously conducted blood draws from plaintiff, was not similarly investigated. Plaintiff conceded, however, that there is no evidence in the record to support her FMLA interference claim.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation
Date:
9/15/2023
Maese-Thomason v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ. (D. Ariz. Sep. 8, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. After plaintiff, a former women’s softball coach at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, complained of discrimination by a supervisor, the University placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan and opened a Title IX investigation into allegations she intimidated student-athletes. When notified of the investigation, she disclosed a PTSD diagnosis to the investigator and requested her counselor support her during the interview. She then requested medical leave but asserted it would be better for her health if the investigation moved forward. When she was terminated at the end of her leave, she brought sex and disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University. The court granted summary judgment to the University on her failure to accommodate claim, finding she had not objected when the University permitted her counselor to attend the interview but denied her request to hold the interview in the counselor’s office. It denied summary judgment on her ADA disparate treatment claim, noting that the University had cited her inability to coach while on leave as a reason for her termination. In addition to permitting plaintiff to proceed on her discrimination and retaliation claims regarding the investigation itself, it also permitted her to proceed (1) on her Title VII retaliation claim regarding the University’s decision to “pause” the investigation after her attorney challenged the process, and (2) on her ADA retaliation claim related to the investigator’s suggestion that her PTSD diagnosis might be disclosed in the investigative report.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
9/8/2023
Dikambi v. City Univ. of N.Y. (S.D. N.Y. Sep. 5, 2023)
Opinion & Order granting the University’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, an employee of John Jay College of the City University of New York (CUNY), brought discrimination claims against CUNY and a former supervisor, alleging that the former supervisor made multiple unwanted sexual advances, subjected her to verbal outbursts, and subjected her to vulgar and insulting comments about her appearance and related to her African heritage. After previously dismissing many of plaintiff’s claims, the court granted CUNY’s motion for summary judgment on her discrimination claims, finding, first, that CUNY could not be held vicariously liable for the former supervisor’s actions because he never had the power to do more than recommend discipline. It further held that plaintiff’s claim that CUNY took insufficient remedial action to address his conduct also failed because the record showed that CUNY responded promptly and proportionately to each of plaintiff’s complaints. The court permitted her state-law claims against the professor to proceed, finding multiple questions of fact regarding his conduct.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
9/8/2023
Univ. of Houston v. Sheppard (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion reversing and rendering judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former employee at the University of Houston’s College of Medicine, brought retaliation claims against the University after she was disciplined and then terminated for repeated performance issues and lack of professionalism. Plaintiff alleged her discipline and termination were in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge of discrimination and retaliation. The trial court denied the University’s plea to the jurisdiction. In reversing and dismissing her claim, the Court of Appeals of Texas held that her prima facie case failed (1) for lack of evidence that her supervisors knew of her EEOC charge and (2) because over four months passed between her last internal complaint and her termination. The court also held that she failed to establish pretext because she presented no evidence to rebut the University’s documentation of multiple deficiencies in her performance.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
9/8/2023
Lax v. The City Univ. of N.Y. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 11, 2023)
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, five observant Jewish professors at Kingsborough Community College (Kingsborough) of the City University of New York (CUNY), brought discrimination and retaliation claims against CUNY, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, the New Caucus of the PSC, and multiple individual professors. Plaintiffs alleged that the professor defendants subjected them to a hostile work environment, conspired to exclude Jewish applicants from a New Caucus-aligned group at Kingsborough called the Progressive Faculty Caucus, and sought their removal from their jobs. They further alleged that CUNY did not take adequate corrective action. In denying CUNY’s motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claims, the court found plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that CUNY’s response to the allegations was inconsistent with findings documented in an investigative report completed by outside counsel. Turning to the retaliation claims, the court also found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that critical statements by the Kingsborough President and a delay of over a year in replacing Kingsborough’s chief diversity officer were reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation

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.