FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Kashdan v. George Mason Univ. (4th Cir. June 13, 2023)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of psychology specializing in human sexuality studies at George Mason University (GMU), brought Title IX, due process, and First Amendment claims against GMU and multiple officials after he was disciplined for creating a hostile educational environment for four female graduate students. The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of his Title IX claims, finding that Department of Education pressure to enforce Title IX was insufficient to show anti-male bias, and his allegation that GMU does not investigate female professors for similar conduct was conclusory. It affirmed dismissal of his due process claim, finding that GMU’s temporary disciplinary sanctions limiting his teaching and clinical privileges did not amount to a significant demotion and did not exclude him from his trade or calling. It affirmed dismissal of his First Amendment claim, finding that his personal stories and questions about his students’ sex lives were speech outside of his curricula and topics of purely personal interest.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    AlSayyad v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. June 7, 2023)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, brought discrimination claims against the University after he was suspended for three years for sexually harassing a graduate student. The faculty Privilege and Tenure Committee recommended a one-year suspension and sensitivity training, finding a “momentary overstep” when he touched the student’s leg. The Chancellor, however, imposed a three-year suspension, finding instead a pattern of harassment and unprofessional behavior. Affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the California Court of Appeals held that the Chancellor presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the more severe sanction and that plaintiff presented no evidence showing that this reason was pretextual. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct