Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
11/24/2023
Wilson v. Johnson (N.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, three former members of the cross-country and track and field teams at Huntington University, brought Title IX deliberate indifference claims against the University, alleging that their former head coach, who was later arrested, subjected them to a hostile environment, unwanted touching, and other assaults. Plaintiffs also alleged that the coach had engaged in sexual relationships with two student-athletes and that two assistant coaches were aware of the relationships and should have known of other inappropriate behavior. In dismissing plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, the court found insufficient factual allegations that an appropriate person had actual knowledge of the alleged abuse.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination
Date:
10/13/2023
Doe v. Rowan Univ. (D. N.J. Oct. 10, 2023)
Opinion denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a former graduate student at Rowan University, brought Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and a former professor after she twice failed required qualifying exams and was dismissed from the program. Plaintiff had previously failed a first-year research project and her master’s thesis defense. While the appeal of her dismissal was pending, she filed a Title IX complaint with the University, alleging that the professor, who was also a grader for the qualifying exams, had made unwanted advances two years earlier. In denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, the court found that she was unlikely to succeed on her discrimination claim since the University had her exam blindly re-scored by two new graders after she filed her Title IX complaint. It ruled she was unlikely to succeed on her Title IX retaliation claim due to the weak nexus between her rejection of the alleged advances and the program’s acts of placing her on academic probation and seeking to dismiss her, which both took place more than a year later.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Students
Date:
9/15/2023
Locke v. N.C. State Univ. (E.D. N.C. Sep. 11, 2023)
Order granting the University’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former soccer player at North Carolina State University, brought Title IX claims against the University, alleging that between 2015 and 2017 the team trainer, who was also the University’s director of sports medicine, abused him sexually, including by directing him to shower in front of him and touching him inappropriately under the guise of performing a sports massage. After plaintiff reported the abuse to law enforcement in 2021, a Title IX investigation found that in early 2016 the head soccer coach notified the senior associate athletic director that he suspected the trainer was engaged in sexual grooming of male student-athletes. The trainer was moved to more administrative duties but remained with the University. In related cases, plaintiffs John Doe and John Doe 2 also made similar claims. In dismissing plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the court held the report of suspected sexual grooming was insufficient to allege that an official with the authority to take corrective measures had actual notice of the abuse.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
8/11/2023
Doe 1, et al. v. The Univ. of S.F., et al. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2023)
Order granting-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, 14 former baseball players at the University of San Francisco, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought discrimination, retaliation, and contract claims against the University and two former coaches, alleging that the coaches created a sexualized and abusive environment and that the University permitted the behavior to persist. Does 1-3 played on the team beginning in 2020, and Does 4-14 played between 1999 and 2018. The court permitted all plaintiffs to proceed in their Title IX and state-law discrimination claims. The court found that Does 4-14 had sufficiently alleged a University coverup that was a cause of their Title IX injury and held that whether the alleged coverup tolled the statute of limitations under the discovery rule is better addressed at the summary judgment phase. The court also permitted Does 1-3 to proceed on their retaliation claims, but it dismissed the retaliation claims of Does 4-14 as time barred, noting that the alleged retaliatory conduct was overt and experienced as abuse at the time. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ contract claims because they attached the wrong document to their complaint. It also dismissed plaintiffs’ claim based on the agreement between the University and the NCAA requiring the University to abide by the NCAA Division Manual, finding that even though student-athletes benefit from NCAA principles, the principles fall short of expressing a clear intent to establish the student-athletes as third-party beneficiaries.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination
Date:
7/21/2023
O’Brien v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. June 29, 2023)
Opinion affirming denial of a Writ of Mandate. Plaintiff, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who was censured and suspended for a year in 2020 related to an allegation that he sexually harassed a graduate student from another institution, at an overseas conference in 2012, sought a writ of mandate setting the sanction aside, asserting multiple procedural violations. In affirming denial, the California Court of Appeals first held that the University’s three-year rule on disciplinary proceedings was not triggered by a 2014 complaint that lacked sufficient allegations to warrant an investigation but was triggered in 2017 when the graduate student submitted a complaint. The court then affirmed the Privilege and Tenure Committee’s interpretation of the Faculty Code of Conduct that held that the prohibition on discrimination against or harassment of a “colleague” included a graduate student from another institution attending an overseas conference. Finally, the court also held that plaintiff failed to show that the sanction was unsupported by the evidence in the record or was the result of an unfair proceeding.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination
Date:
7/21/2023
Kraft v. Tex. A&M Univ. (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee of the Transportation Services Department at Texas A&M University, brought a hostile work environment claim against the University and a former training supervisor after the training supervisor was terminated for surreptitiously placing a hidden camera in a women’s restroom. Plaintiff also alleged that the former training supervisor had made sexualized comments and stared at her inappropriately. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court noted that plaintiff failed to establish (1) that the training supervisor had authority over her after her training period concluded or (2) that the University knew or should have known either of the camera or the alleged inappropriate behavior.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
7/14/2023
Ohio State Univ. v. Snyder-Hill (U.S. June 26, 2023)
Order denying petition for certiorari. Plaintiffs, who alleged they were among hundreds of male student-athletes at Ohio State University who were sexually abused over a period of many years beginning in 1978 by one-time athletic team doctor and university physician, brought Title IX claims against the University alleging that it was deliberately indifferent to the risk of the doctor’s abuse. Plaintiffs assert that the University forced the doctor to retire in 1998 but did not reveal the allegations against him. They further assert that when the doctor set up private practice near campus and advertised in the student newspaper, the University did not act to substantiate numerous additional complaints until 2018. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding they had plausibly alleged sufficient grounds to delay accrual. In its June 26, 2023 Order List, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
6/9/2023
J.L. v. Rockefeller Univ. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 25, 2023)
Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff alleged that he was sexually assaulted by a doctor employed by Rockefeller University Hospital between 1957 and 1966, when he was between the ages of seven and sixteen, during appointments for physical exams. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed in his negligent hiring, retention, supervision and/or direction claim, finding that he had sufficiently alleged that hospital staff were aware that the doctor was abusing children and that he had taken inappropriate photographs of his victims while they were patients in the hospital. It dismissed his intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, finding the allegations duplicative of the negligence claims. In dismissed his breach of duty in loco parentis claim, finding that because the hospital did not have long-term custody or supervision of plaintiff, the duty applicable to schools as contemplated in the case law did not apply to the hospital.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Sex Discrimination | Tort Litigation
Date:
6/9/2023
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
Date:
5/26/2023
Dep.’t of Education Timing Update on Title IX Rulemaking (May 26, 2023)
U.S. Department of Education Timing Update on Title IX Rulemaking. In a blog posting, ED announced that it is updating its Spring Unified Agenda to reflect an anticipated October 2023 publication date for both the final Title IX rule and the final Athletics regulation.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Gender Equity in Athletics | 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.