Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Doe v. Univ. of N. Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. (N.D. Tex. June 23, 2023)

    Order and Opinion granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former medical student at the University of North Texas Health Science Center who was permitted to take a one-year medical leave of absence, brought due process and equal protection claims against multiple officials in their individual capacities after he was dismissed from the program for failure to meet the conditions for his return, even after multiple requests from the officials.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his due process claim, finding that though he claimed not to have received a hand-delivered letter outlining the conditions for his return, two email notices informing him that he faced dismissal and one informing him of his dismissal and opportunity for appeal provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.  The court similarly held that plaintiff’s equal protection claim failed because he did not identify a similarly situated non-disabled person who was treated differently after taking medical leave, failing to satisfy the conditions for return, and failing to respond to multiple notices in the dismissal process.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process

  • Date:

    Khan v. Yale Univ. (Conn. June 27, 2023)

    Opinion answering questions certified by the Second Circuit.  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 expelled him for violating its Sexual Misconduct Policy.  Plaintiff subsequently sued Doe and Yale for defamation and tortious interference with a contract.  Finding insufficient relevant precedent under Connecticut law, the Second Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of Connecticut regarding immunity for statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.  In response, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held (1) that “a quasi-judicial proceeding is an adjudicative one, in which the proceeding is specifically authorized by law, the entity conducting the proceeding applies the law to the facts within a framework that contains procedural safeguards, and there is a sound public policy justification for affording proceeding participants absolute immunity;” (2) that the University’s “proceeding was not quasi-judicial because it lacked important procedural safeguards;” and (3) that a qualified privilege is available to alleged victims of sexual assault who report their abuse to proper authorities at institutions of higher education, but, at this stage of the proceedings, the allegations of malice in [plaintiff’s] complaint are sufficient to defeat Doe’s entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Doe v. The Citadel (4th Cir. June 12, 2023)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former student at The Citadel, brought Title IX and due process claims against the College and multiple administrators after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s due process claims against the individual defendants, the Fourth Circuit declined to hold that the disciplinary board violated his due process rights when it stopped his representative from cross-examining the complainant about her memory, noting that he was afforded notice, a hearing, and an opportunity for appeal. Turning to his Title IX claim, the court held that he failed to connect either the generalization that most complainants are female or the 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter” requiring compliance with Title IX to any facts suggesting sex discrimination in his case.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Sexual Misconduct | 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

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