Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
10/27/2023
Khan v. Yale Univ. (2nd Cir. Oct. 25, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part dismissal and remanding. In 2015, Jane Doe, a student at Yale University, accused plaintiff, also a student at Yale, of sexual assault. In 2018, after he was found not guilty in a state criminal trial, the University conducted a disciplinary hearing and expelled him for violating its Sexual Misconduct Policy. Plaintiff subsequently sued Doe and Yale for defamation and tortious interference with a contract. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claims, finding that Doe enjoyed an absolute quasi-judicial immunity for her statements to the 2018 disciplinary hearing and that plaintiff’s claims as to Doe’s 2015 statements were time-barred. After the Connecticut Supreme Court opined in response to questions certified to it that Yale’s disciplinary procedure lacked necessary procedural safeguards—such as an oath requirement, cross-examination, the ability to call witnesses, meaningful assistance of counsel, and an adequate record for appeal—to constitute a quasi-judicial proceeding to support Doe’s assertion of immunity, the Second Circuit vacated dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as to statements made during the 2018 disciplinary hearing that resulted in his expulsion. It affirmed that his claims as to Doe’s 2015 statements were time-barred.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort Litigation
Date:
9/22/2023
Helmig v. Univ. of Colo. Bd. of Regents (D. Colo. Sep.12, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former researcher on a limited appointment at the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research who also had an independent consulting business, brought due process and contract claims against the Board of Regents, Institute Officials, and various University compliance and audit officials after he was terminated when an investigation found violations of the University’s conflicts of interest policy. Plaintiff alleged that the investigative report contained inaccurate and misleading statements that damaged his professional opportunities. In permitting plaintiff to proceed on (1) his due process claims against various Institute and compliance and audit officials, and (2) his contract claims against the Board, the court found he had sufficiently alleged a property interest in his continued employment based on his limited appointment and University policies about termination of faculty members for cause. It dismissed his due process claims against the various officials for alleged inaccuracies in the investigated report on grounds of qualified immunity. It also dismissed his claims against the Regents in their individual capacities for want of factual allegations demonstrating their personal involvement.
Topics:
Conflict of Interest | Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Due Process | Research
Date:
9/22/2023
Doe v. Univ. of Iowa (8th Cir. Sep. 14, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment. Plaintiff, a former graduate student and lab manager at the University of Iowa, brought Title IX and due process claims against the University and multiple officials after he was expelled for sexual misconduct related to two female undergraduates he supervised in the lab. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on his Title IX claim, the Eighth Circuit held that (1) plaintiff’s disagreements with the hearing officer’s findings of fact and credibility determinations were insufficient to show an erroneous outcome; (2) neither the hearing officer’s use of the word “fantasy” to describe his account of one of the sexual encounters nor the University’s application of its definition of consent were sufficient to raise questions of gender bias; and (3) neither other litigation nor the University’s efforts to prevent sexual misconduct, which “included ‘expanding programming on healthy masculinity,’” were sufficient to suggest external pressures on the decision-makers in his case. In affirming the disposition of his due process claims, the court held that even though the hearing officer did not ask all the impeachment questions he submitted, the University afforded him a sufficient opportunity to be heard, noting that he had the opportunity to submit additional information after the conclusion of the hearing. It also found that consideration of his leadership role in the lab during the disciplinary process addressed only factual circumstances and did not amount to holding him to a heightened standard without notice.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
9/8/2023
Casper v. Tex. Woman’s Univ. (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Texas Woman’s University, brought due process and First Amendment claims against the University and multiple officials after an investigation substantiated a student complaint that plaintiff had engaged in demeaning conduct toward students and failed to provide required disability accommodations. The University permitted plaintiff to retain her tenure, salary, and benefits, but barred her indefinitely from teaching or performing other faculty duties. In affirming dismissal of her procedural due process claim, the Court of Appeals of Texas held that plaintiff failed to allege that she had a protectable property right in the performance of the specific duties the University barred her from performing. Her substantive due process claim similarly failed under the stigma-plus test because she did not allege that the University publicized the charges against her or revoked her tenure. Finally, her First Amendment claim failed because she failed to allege that comments she claimed she made about “the value of hard work” were either matters of public concern or made in the context of classroom discussions.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | First Amendment & Free Speech
Date:
8/25/2023
Doe v. Univ. of Mich. (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023)
Opinion vacating an award of attorney fees and remanding for recalculation. Plaintiff is a former student at the University of Michigan who was accused of sexual assault in March 2018. Before the University completed its investigation, plaintiff sued, alleging the University’s procedures violated his due process rights. The district court granted a preliminary injunction. The Sixth Circuit remanded for reconsideration in light of its then recent decision in Doe v. Baum. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment to plaintiff on his assertions that the University withheld his transcript without due process and that the University’s proposed disciplinary process did not afford him a live hearing with cross-examination. The complainant subsequently decided not to participate further in the process. In reviewing the district court’s award of attorney fees, the Sixth Circuit held that plaintiff had standing and was the prevailing party regarding the withheld transcript, but held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his claim regarding the hearing procedures because those claims were either unripe or moot. Accordingly, it vacated and remanded for recalculation of the award of attorney fees.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/25/2023
Babinski v. Sosnowsky (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023)
Opinion reversing and dismissing. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student in the theatre program at Louisiana State University, brought due process claims against multiple professors in the department based on his assertion that he was “de facto expelled” from the program without a meaningful opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Plaintiff had submitted a “performative writing” for a course term paper that expressed his disapproval of his professor’s views in a course on “Gender, Sexuality, and Performance.” The chair of the department forwarded the paper to the LSU Police Department and the LSU Office of Student Advocacy and Accountability, though neither found an actionable violation. Plaintiff alleged that his professors then conspired to refuse to teach him, serve on his dissertation panel, or administer his general examinations, thus impeding his ability to complete the doctoral program. He subsequently earned a master’s degree in the philosophy department. In reversing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the professors, the Fifth Circuit assumed a constitutional violation but nevertheless held that plaintiff failed to show a clearly established right, finding that he had not identified a case that was sufficiently analogous to his asserted “de facto expulsion” that “dealt with the alleged tainting of the process that a school or university provided to a student.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation
Date:
8/18/2023
R.W. v. Columbia Basin Coll. (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and dismissing-in-part on Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Columbia Basin College (CBC), brought constitutional claims against CBC and multiple officials after they learned he had sought medical treatment for homicidal thoughts about three instructors, terminated him from the program, barred him from campus, and entered failing grades for his coursework then in progress. The district court permitted plaintiff to proceed against the officials under Ex parte Young for injunctive relief for reinstatement in the nursing program and expungement of his failing grades. In affirming on interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an ongoing violation of federal law to be permitted to proceed because CBC’s letter imposing the sanctions did not specify a time limit and because there was a possibility that CBC could reinstate the sanctions even though it had changed its internal procedures for issuing sanctions. It dismissed several other issues, however, as improper for resolution on interlocutory appeal.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Conduct | Students
Date:
8/11/2023
Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa. (W.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2023)
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of a football player at California University of Pennsylvania who died of COVID-19 in September 2020, brought substantive due process and state-law claims against the University, alleging that it took insufficient measures “to prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19” when it permitted student-athletes to return to campus for Fall 2020. In dismissing plaintiff’s substantive due process claims with prejudice, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege conduct that shocks the conscience, noted the numerous mitigation actions taken by the University mentioned in plaintiff’s factual allegations. The court deferred a decision on exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims pending consideration of claims against one defendant who did not appear in this action.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Coronavirus | Due Process | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation
Date:
8/4/2023
Boermeester v. Carry (Cal. July 31, 2023)
Opinion reversing and remanding. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Southern California, sued the University and its Vice President of Student Affairs, seeking a writ of administrative mandate after he was expelled for intimate partner violence. The University had conducted separate and individual evidentiary hearings for both plaintiff and the complainant. The trial court denied the writ, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that plaintiff did not have the opportunity for a live hearing with cross-examination. The California Supreme Court reversed again, holding under section 1094.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure that “though universities are required to comply with the common law doctrine of fair procedure by providing accused students with notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, they are not required to provide accused students with the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine the accuse and other witnesses at a live hearing with the accused student in attendance, either in person or virtually.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
7/14/2023
Caldwell v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. of Regents, et al. (D. N.M. June 23, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff is a former student and varsity basketball player at the University of New Mexico (UNM) who was placed on interim suspension and banned from campus and from basketball team activities after he was accused of battery. Plaintiff alleged that the Dean of Students violated his due process rights when she banned him temporarily from campus and University housing. In granting the Dean’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court held although plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a property right in continued enrollment, the University’s procedures provided due process. It also held that even if he had a property right in his University-provided housing and meals, the two eviction notices and four hearings provided him with adequate notice and process. It held, however, that he had not sufficiently alleged a property right in his ability to play basketball. Finally, the court also held that the Dean was also entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged property rights were not clearly established.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Athlete Issues | Student Conduct | Students

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.