FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Pepper v. Brown Univ. (D. R.I. Nov. 2, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, pro se, a former food service employee at Brown University who was diagnosed with ADHD, which he asserted included sensitivity to sounds and hypervigilance, brought disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after he was fired for violently assaulting a co-worker. The co-worker admitted to managers that he had previously antagonized plaintiff by sneaking up on him and making loud noises. Prior to the unprovoked assault, the University admonished the co-worker, took steps to limit his interactions with plaintiff, and began a process to find plaintiff a new work location on campus. In granting summary judgment to the University on his hostile work environment claim, the court found that plaintiff offered no evidence of disability-based discriminatory animus, noting that the co-worked had no knowledge of plaintiff’s ADHD. Turning to his failure to accommodate claim, the court found that (1) plaintiff had produced insufficient evidence that his ADHD caused a substantial limitation of a major life activity; (2) he was not an otherwise qualified individual because compliance with the University’s Workplace Violence Policy was an essential job function; and (3) the University took steps to stop the inappropriate behavior and provided him with information on the accommodations process, but that plaintiff himself had not yet provided necessary documentation. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed because he provided no evidence of continued harassment after he initially complained to managers about the co-worker’s behavior.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | RetaliationDate:
Duke-Koelfgen v. Alamo Colleges Dist. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured Associate Professor of composition and literature at San Antonio College, brought First Amendment claims against the College and individual officials after she was twice disciplined for unprofessional communications related to emails she sent demanding that students be permitted to use scholarship funds to take her class even though it was outside of their degree plans and criticizing officials who had requested volunteers to cover classes for an instructor who was ill. In granting the College’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the speech in plaintiff’s emails was not protected by the First Amendment because it occurred when she was performing duties within the scope of her job responsibilities, noting that she sent the messages to College administrators in her capacity as an Associate Professor addressing College procedures.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free SpeechDate:
Waesche v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ. (D. Ariz. Sep. 29, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former full-time, non-tenured Instructor of Russian Language at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, brought contract and discrimination claims against the University after it declined to renew her contract citing low enrollments. A Faculty Grievance Committee recommended extending her full-time status because her termination letter was signed by the wrong person and issued prior to her annual evaluation, though it found no evidence that her non-renewal was discriminatory, arbitrary, or capricious. In granting summary judgment to the University, the court found that plaintiff could not establish damages because her assertion that her contract would have been renewed if the University had completed her faculty evaluation was speculative. Plaintiff’s discrimination claim failed for lack of evidence that any similarly situated comparators were treated more favorably.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin DiscriminationDate:
Wallace v. Owens (C.D. Ill. July 31, 2023)
Opinion granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former sworn law enforcement officer at the University of Illinois Springfield, brought Equal Protection claims against her former supervisors after she was terminated because of actions she took during a traffic stop. The court dismissed her claims (1) as barred by sovereign immunity and (2) because her allegation that she “was disciplined more harshly than male co-workers who engaged in comparable violations of policy” was insufficient to “meet the low threshold required of a plaintiff who alleges a Fourteenth Amendment gender discrimination claim.”
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Equal Protection | Faculty & StaffDate:
Lee v. Yale Univ. (2nd Cir. June 20, 2023)
Summary Order affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a forensic psychologist and former voluntary Assistant Clinical Professor in the Law and Psychiatry Division of the Yale School of Medicine, brought contract and state law claims against the University, alleging it violated her academic freedom when it declined to renew her appointment citing ethical concerns over her public statements diagnosing political figures with a “shared psychosis.” In affirming dismissal, the Second Circuit held that her contract claims failed because she had not adequately alleged a promise to renew her appointment even in the face of such public statements. It further held that her claim under a state statute establishing liability for an employer who disciplines or discharges an employee for exercising First Amendment rights failed because she had not adequately alleged remuneration.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | 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.