Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    McCourt v. Fashion Inst. of Tech. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 1. 2023)

    Decision and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Manager of Enterprise Network Services in the IT Department at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), brought whistleblower retaliation and age discrimination claims against FIT after he was terminated for violating a written warning related to repeated uncivil and threatening behavior. Plaintiff contended that the warning and termination amounted to age discrimination or retaliation for raising concerns about unjustified costs in procurement of computer equipment and wasteful spending on IT vendors. In granting summary judgment to FIT on plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court held that two months separating his protected activity and the warning was too great to establish causation. It also found that plaintiff lacked evidence to show that he had a reasonable belief that FIT spent too much on the vendors. In granting summary judgment to FIT on his age discrimination claim, the court noted that FIT decided to present plaintiff with the option to retire only after it had decided to terminate him.  

    Topics:

    Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Chambers v. North Carolina Dep’t of Justice (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2023)

    Opinion affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding dismissal. Plaintiff, a former investigator in the Medicaid Investigations Division at the North Carolina Department of Justice who is African American, brought discrimination and wrongful termination claims under §1981 against the Department and two former supervisors after she was terminated. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, finding her claims against the Department barred by sovereign immunity and her claims against her supervisors in their individual capacities time barred under North Carolina’s three-year limitations period for personal injury claims. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded as to her claims against her supervisors, noting (1) that in 1990 Congress enacted 28 U.S.C.§1658 to “establish a catchall four-year statute of limitations for federal claims ‘arising under’ any act of Congress … enacted after December 1, 1990” and (2) that in 1991, Congress “expanded §1981 to prohibit race discrimination post-contract formation, including in the termination of contract.”  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Marshall v. State (Wash. App. May 2, 2023)

    Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track assistant professor at the University of Washington Tacoma, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she was denied promotion and tenure. Though plaintiff’s record of research funding and publication was strong, the University pointed to low student evaluations in some of her courses to defer her reappointment and then deny her application for promotion and tenure. The Court of Appeals of Washington reversed summary judgment on her discrimination claim, holding that inconsistencies between student evaluations and positive peer observations of her teaching, studies documenting racism on campus, comments suggesting racial animus by people involved in her review, and a lack of other efforts to retain her were sufficient to raise a material question as to whether the focus on student evaluations was pretextual. The court similarly reversed on her hostile work environment claim, finding that use of “coded language that could reflect racial animus” presented a material question as to harassment affecting the terms or conditions of her employment. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on her retaliation claim, however, holding that she presented no evidence to suggest that adverse employment decisions were motivated by her reports of discrimination rather than the bias she alleged.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Tenure

  • Date:

    McKinley v. Princeton Univ. (D. N.J. Apr. 28, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion grating Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former budget analyst at Princeton University who had been granted a religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after it denied her second request for a religious exemption to its masking, testing, and contract tracing policies and terminated her shortly thereafter. The court dismissed her religious discrimination claims for failure to identify a religious practice that prevented her from complying with the policies. It dismissed her retaliation claims, holding that because she had not alleged a sincerely held religious belief, she was unable to show that she had opposed an unlawful denial of a religious accommodation. Finally, it dismissed her Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) claim because she failed to show that saliva samples collected were used for any purpose other than COVID-19 testing.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Myrick v. Tex. State Tech. Coll. (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee of Texas State Technical College, brought a Title IX retaliation claim against the College after she was terminated for violating the College’s Title IX policy. A male student had confided in her that a female employee had sent him an “odd” message inviting him to lunch and giving him her phone number. Plaintiff sought the guidance of a human resources official, hesitated initially to file a report, and then named the student only days later after she had been warned she was required to report his name. In permitting plaintiff’s claim to proceed, the court held that the College’s assertion that plaintiff had not engaged in Title IX protected activity is more properly addressed at the summary judgment stage. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ. (Cal. App. Apr. 27, 2023)

    Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff is a former tenured professor at Santa Clara University (SCU) who was terminated after a faculty judicial board (FJB) determined he sexually harassed a former teaching assistant, Jane Doe. He sought mandamus and injunctive relief and damages against SCU and brought defamation claims against both SCU and Doe. The California Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the writ of mandate, finding that although the Faculty Handbook was unclear about procedures for student-teacher sexual harassment cases, plaintiff received a fair hearing, and his termination was supported by substantial evidence. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of SCU on his wrongful termination and contract claims, finding no evidence supporting his claim of discrimination and no procedural irregularities sufficient to show breach of contract. Turning to his defamation claims, the court held that Doe’s complaint, the investigation, and an independent investigator’s report are all subject to the litigation privilege for quasi-judicial proceedings. It reversed summary judgment, however, as to statements Doe made to a witness prior to her complaint, which plaintiff testified were fabrications. This, the court held, created a triable question as to whether (1) Doe knew the statements were false and (2) the common-interest privilege she asserted over them was negated by malice.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Sex Discrimination | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Minor v. La. State Univ. at Eunice (W.D. La. Apr. 25, 2023)

    Report and Recommendation granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Louisiana State University at Eunice, brought disability discrimination and due process claims against the University and its Dean of Students after she received a zero on an exam for cheating and was dismissed from the program due to the failing grade. The court dismissed her disability discrimination claims against the University as time barred, in part due to lack of proper service. Turning to her due process claims, the court held that even assuming plaintiff’s appeal hearing was disciplinary in nature, plaintiff received sufficient procedural due process even though the University (1) did not present her original scratch paper and alleged cheat sheet or live witnesses, (2) did not consider an advisor’s email describing the way she used scratch paper to write out all of her knowledge at the beginning of an exam to manage her test-taking anxiety, and (3) permitted the allegedly biased Dean to remain with the hearing panel as it made its decision. Plaintiff’s substantive due process claim failed because she did not allege that her dismissal was arbitrary or shocking to the conscience. 

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Students

  • Date:

    Lan v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio (W.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2023)

    Report and Recommendation granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former doctoral student and research assistant at the University of Texas at San Antonio who is Chinese, proceeding pro se, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she twice failed her comprehensive exam and was terminated from her research assistantship. As a threshold matter, the court found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged at this stage of the proceedings that she was an employee of the University. The court permitted her discrimination claim to proceed, finding that although she had not identified a comparator who retained an assistantship after twice failing a comprehensive exam, she sufficiently alleged that non-Chinese research assistants were graded more leniently. It also permitted her retaliation claim related to denial of her request for reinstatement to proceed because she alleged that two professors who knew of her grade grievance participated in the decision. Her retaliation claim related to her initial termination failed, however, because that occurred months before she filed her grievance.     

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Students

  • Date:

    Osman v. Ala. State Univ., et al. (M.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track Assistant Professor of Accounting at Alabama State University who is Muslim, Black, of African ancestry, and of Sudanese descent, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after his application for early promotion and tenure was denied. The court held that his non-promotion discrimination claim failed because (1) the Provost had independently reviewed his dossier and found he lacked the required five years of teaching experience and (2) his assembled mosaic of comments at the department level were insufficient to permit an inference of intentional discrimination by the Provost. His retaliation claim likewise failed because he was unable to show that the Provost knew of his alleged protected activity prior to his promotion denial.  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Rudman v. Oklahoma (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2023)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student and member of the Cheer Team at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO), brought deliberate indifference, retaliation, equal protection, and due process claims against UCO and its Senior Director of Student Engagement who oversaw UCO’s Spirit Teams, stemming from an off-campus, “unofficial” Cheer initiation event at which new members were allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation and harassment hazing. The court permitted her Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University and her §1983 equal protection claim against the Senior Director to proceed, finding she sufficiently alleged that the Senior Director had knowledge of similar conduct at past unofficial events and “consciously acquiesced in that conduct by refusing to respond reasonably to it.” However, it dismissed her §1983 due process claims against the Senior Director, finding that (1) the factual allegations were insufficient to allege that she deliberately created an intolerable environment on campus in order to force plaintiff to leave UCO and (2) plaintiff had not shown that a right against “constructive expulsion” was clearly established.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Retaliation | Students | 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