Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
2/6/2026
Kessinger v. West Virginia State University (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 6, 2026)
Opinion Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former music instructor for West Virginia University, sued the university alleging violation of procedural due process, Title IX retaliation, and state law claims after she was placed on administrative leave based on allegations of her making sexually explicit comments to students during class, rehearsal, office hours, and allegations of unprofessional behavior during a choir trip. The court found that the university was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and further held that the individual defendants within their official capacities did not violate procedural due process because plaintiff received notice of the allegations, a written investigation letter outlining her rights, and an opportunity to respond before being suspended. The court also dismissed her Title IX retaliation claims, finding that she had not engaged in protected activity under Title IX, as she was the subject, not the complainant, of the investigation. After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
10/8/2025
Saud v. DePaul Univ. (7th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025)
Opinion Affirming Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at DePaul University, brought a racial discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981, after the university deemed him ineligible for future employment following a campus Title IX investigation found he had sexually harassed a student. The district court granted summary judgment for the university, finding that the plaintiff had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the university had discriminated against the plaintiff. The 7th circuit affirmed, holding that “[s]exual misconduct is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment action” and that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the university’s action was pretextual because he had failed to provide any evidence that the university did not “honestly believe[] it made the correct employment decision.”
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination
Date:
12/6/2024
Terrell v. Ala. State Univ. (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2024) (unpub.)
Per Curium opinion affirming in part and vacating and remanding in part. Plaintiff, a female former Senior Associate Athletic Director of Internal Operations at Alabama State University, brought pay discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after a new Athletic Director eliminated her position in favor of a new Senior Associate Athletic Director/Chief of Staff role for which one of the AD’s former direct reports was hired. Plaintiff was also designated as the Senior Woman Administrator, though she did not receive the additional compensation the University had earmarked in its budget for the role. The district court granted summary judgment to the University finding that plaintiff failed to identify proper comparators regarding her Equal Pay Act (EPA) claim, and further found her challenges to the wisdom of the University’s proposed reorganization and budget process fell short of raising questions of pretext regarding her retaliation and Title IX discrimination claims. The Eleventh Circuit conducted a de novo review and affirmed the district court’s judgment regarding plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claims but vacated and remanded the EPA and Clarke-Figures Equal Pay Act (CFEPA) sex discrimination claims in light of its recent clarification of the analytical framework for EPA claims in Baker v. Upson Reg’l Med. Ctr., (11th Cir. 2024). In Baker, the Eleventh Circuit held that claims of sex discrimination under the EPA are analyzed under a two-step framework, requiring plaintiff to demonstrate “that an employer pays different wages to employees of opposite sexes ‘for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.’” The burden then shifts to the employer, to demonstrate that the difference in pay is justified by one of the EPA’s four exceptions: “(1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a differential based on any factor other than sex” (internal quotes omitted). Thus, the Eleventh Circuit remanded plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims under the EPA and CFEPA requiring the district court to apply the Baker test.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
11/8/2024
Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2024)
Opinion and Order reversing the order denying the dismissal of Plaintiff A’s claims and affirming the judgment against Plaintiff B, after the Eleventh Circuit consolidated two appeals against the Board of Regents for the University System of Georgia, and the Georgia Tech Athletic Association to determine whether Title IX provides an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment. In the first case, Plaintiff A was a former art professor at Augusta University, whom multiple students complained had sexually harassed them. While an investigation was pending, Plaintiff A received a negative teaching evaluation. Then, he was suspended for one semester after the investigation found violation of the University’s sexual harassment policy. He appealed unsuccessfully, and while the appeal was pending Plaintiff A was allegedly reassigned to remedial tasks and then refused contract renewal, which led him to bring claims of retaliation and sex discrimination in employment under Title IX. In the second case, Plaintiff B was the former head women’s basketball coach for Georgia Tech, who raised complaints alleging funding disparities between the women and men’s basketball programs, including sending a letter to the institution’s president, which also alleged “differential treatment of her as a female coach.” At the same time, the university received complaints regarding Plaintiff B’s coaching techniques, including parent letters that alleged she and her staff created a “toxic” environment for the athletes. Although Plaintiff B denied that she created a “toxic” environment, an investigation corroborated the claims, and she was fired. Plaintiff B filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which she alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, sex discrimination under Title IX, and violation of the Georgia Whistleblower Act. After consolidating the appeals, the Eleventh Circuit found that Title IX does not provide a right of action for employees under Title VI, under a sex discrimination theory, and that neither plaintiff met their burden to sustain a claim for retaliation. Ultimately, the Circuit reasoned that “an implied right of action would impose unclear conditions or remedies for Spending Clause legislation, [and] we should not recognize that right.” Thus, the Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff A’s claim, considering he did not oppose an underlying violation; and affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff B’s claims under all theories, finding that she failed to tie her claims to her sex or to rebut the preferred nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
10/18/2024
Deiter v. Tenn. Tech. Univ. (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 11, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured Associate Professor at Tennessee Technological University brought Title VII claims alleging employment sex discrimination following denial of a promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor. Plaintiff applied for promotion in the fall of 2020. She received a majority vote recommending her for the promotion from the English Department, as well as a recommendation from the interim chair of the department, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The Provost recommended against plaintiff’s promotion, reasoning that “there is not adequate documented evidence to satisfy the [University] Policy criteria,” specifically in reference to plaintiff’s scholarship. Following the Provost’s recommendation, the President of the University ultimately denied her application, wrote that plaintiff’s teaching, service, and outreach category was sufficient for promotion, but that the quantity and frequency of her scholarship – two published scholarly articles and a book review over her five-year tenure at the University – was concerning. Plaintiff wrote. Plaintiff appealed to the Faculty Affairs Committee, which found procedural errors in the Provost’s review and unanimously voted to recommend the Provost’s denial be overturned and plaintiff be promoted. Notwithstanding, the President rejected the recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee. At the same time, plaintiff alleged two of her male colleagues with fewer achievements were promoted. The court found plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated she was qualified for promotion, citing the University’s President’s statement that her teaching, service, and outreach record was sufficient for promotion. Further, while the President and Provost seemed to rest their decision on plaintiff’s scholarship, the University policy contained no publication quota for the scholarship portion of the promotion criteria. Finally, the court found plaintiff sufficiently presented evidence to establish her male colleagues were (1) not members of the protected class due to their gender; and (2) similarly-situated to plaintiff as they sought the same promotion, during the same timeframe, within the same department, subject to the same policies and ultimate decision maker (the University President), obtained the same peer support, and were “weak in scholarship.”
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination
Date:
9/20/2024
Vengalattore v. Cornell Univ. (N.D. N.Y. Sep. 10, 2024)
Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track Assistant Professor at Cornell University, brought Title IX, Title VI (national origin), and defamation claims against the University based on alleged flaws in an investigation that resulted in a finding that the plaintiff had violated the University’s Policy on Romantic and Sexual Relations Between Students and Staff. In allowing plaintiff’s Title IX claims to proceed, the court categorized plaintiff’s claim as one for “erroneous outcome” finding that there were disputes of material fact regarding if the University departed from proper procedure in application of timelines within its investigatory process; if the failure to interview additional witnesses identified by plaintiff rose to the level of evidentiary infirmities in the University’s findings; and in maintenance of confidentiality between the misconduct and tenure review processes. The court allowed plaintiff’s gender bias claims to proceed given the evidence alleged an “atmosphere of public pressure” and suggested that a reasonable jury could infer anti-male gender bias from the combined alleged procedural irregularities and external pressure to correct perceived tolerance of sexual misconduct. The court dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claim finding that he himself published the alleged defamatory content when he publicly filed a petition seeking review of his denial of tenure under New York’s Article 78.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Faculty & Staff | Sex Discrimination | Students | Tenure | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/30/2024
Huang v. The Ohio State Univ. (6th Cir. Aug 28, 2024)
Opinion vacating the trial verdict and remanding. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. engineering student at the Ohio State University brought claims of Title VII quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation, and a claim for unwanted sexual touching in violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process right to bodily integrity against the University and her former advisor. Plaintiff alleged the former advisor sexually harassed and assaulted her throughout her Ph.D. candidacy and retaliated against her by failing her candidacy exam. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court “mishandled” plaintiff’s claims against both the University and her former advisor and abused its discretion. Initially, the Circuit held that (1) plaintiff’s status as a student and as an employee are not mutually exclusive, (2) application of the 13-factor common law agency test showed a dispute of material fact as to if plaintiff was an “employee” of the University for Title VII purposes, and (3) a jury must resolve the factual discrepancies over “where and when” plaintiff worked before the district could decide as a matter of law whether she was an employee when subjected to alleged harassment. Next, the Court adopted the majority view that plaintiff pushing her former advisor away to resist his alleged advances is a form of opposition to improper touching (even if she did not vocalize her objection), which meets the “protected activity” prong of a prima facie Title VII retaliation claim, and thus, on remand the district must proceed with the “nondiscriminatory reason” and “pretext” steps of the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework. Finally, the Circuit found that the district erred and violated plaintiff’s “substantial rights” by applying an overly narrow view of relevancy to exclude multiple categories of evidence at trial including circumstantial evidence of harassment, entitling plaintiff to a new trial.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
8/9/2024
U.S. Dep’t of Ed. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S. ____ (2024).
U.S. Supreme Court per curium denial of applications for stay in Department of Education v. Louisianna, No. 24A78 and Cardona v. Tennessee, No. 24A79. Multiple states filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) challenging the Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, on multiple grounds, including arguing that the Rule exceeds the four corners of the Congressionally implemented statutory text, and sought preliminary injunction. The U.S. Districts of Louisiana and Kentucky granted plaintiffs’ preliminary relief against enforcement of the Rule in the plaintiff states. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits declined to stay the respective injunctions. Subsequently, the Department made emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking partial stays of the PIs pending resolution of the appeals before the Circuits. The Supreme Court reasoned that plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief on a trio of provisions of the Rule regarding the scope of the definition of sex discrimination, which includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, rejected the Department’s request to sever those provisions and implement the remainder of the Rule, and thus, denied the emergency applications.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/2/2024
Foley v. Drexel Univ. (E.D. Pa. July 25, 2024)
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor in the Department of English and Philosophy at Drexel University, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and her department chair, alleging a pattern of “academic bullying” that “she contends is commonly perpetrated against productive female scholars.” In granting summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the court found that her assertions of class cancellations, questions about her promotion to full professor, delayed computer upgrades, and various academic slights were insufficient to raise a question of severe or pervasive harassment. It similarly found that her retaliation claims failed because she was unable to show that any of the allegedly retaliatory actions were either materially adverse or causally connected to her discrimination complaints. It permitted her to proceed on her Equal Pay Act claim, finding a dispute of fact as to whether the salary of a male colleague with a lower academic rank was due to his past service in administrative roles.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
5/3/2024
ACE Regulation Summary of the Title IX Final Rule (Apr. 29, 2024)
Regulation Summary from the American Council on Education (ACE) of the U.S. Department of Education’s Title IX Final Rule. The summary highlights key provisions in of the Final Rule, including its effective date, scope and jurisdiction changes, protections for transgender students, the change to the standard for when the institution is on notice, updated reporting obligations, major changes to investigation and adjudication procedures, new pregnancy-related provisions, training requirements, and expanded Title IX Coordinator responsibilities.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | 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.