Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
11/21/2025
Grossenbach v. Arizona Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2025)
Recommendation from Magistrate Judge to District Court Judge to Deny in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at the University of Arizona, sued the university for violations of Title VII, the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and an Arizona public records law, after it declined to renew his teaching contract, which he alleged was due to complaints the university received about his advocacy on behalf of SaveCFSD, an organization he founded to combat “radical gender ideology” in his local school district. The magistrate judge rejected the university’s argument that plaintiff had failed to “timely exhaust his administrative remedies,” finding instead that the filing window was tolled until he received documents in response to his public records request. The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff had successfully pled facts that would allow one to conclude the university took actions to prevent the plaintiff from discovering his claims by “slow-walking his public records request” and falsely telling him that his contract would not be renewed because the university was going to hire a full-time faculty member to teach [his] classes.” The magistrate judge further found that the Eleventh Amendment was not a barrier to plaintiff’s constitutional claims since he was seeking prospective relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and reinstatement to his position. Finally, the magistrate judge agreed with the university that plaintiff’s Arizona public records law claim should be dismissed because plaintiff had failed to comply with “notice of claim” requirements, while noting the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to withdraw his claim.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation
Date:
11/4/2025
Pesta v. Cleveland State Univ. (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2025)
Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff-Appellant, a former tenured professor at Cleveland State University, sued the university alleging violation of his First Amendment rights after he was investigated and terminated based on research-misconduct related to a controversial paper he co-authored. The trial court granted the university summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff was fired because of misconduct associated with his accessing restricted data from the NIH and not because of the content of his Global Ancestry paper. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that university officials were “reasonably alarmed by [plaintiff’s] cavalier handling of sensitive genomic data, misleading representations to the NIH about the nature of his research, failure to observe basic conflict-of-interest reporting, and the impact that his actions had on [the university] as a research institution reliant on the NIH.”
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Research | Research Misconduct | Students
Date:
10/31/2025
O’Neill v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa. (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2025)
Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former teaching assistant at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university alleging hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII, after (1) she reported improper conduct from a male student in her lab; (2) the university responded with a safety plan; and (3) plaintiff abandoned her job after the university declined to make her requested changes to the safety plan. The court granted summary judgment for the university, finding that while it agreed with the plaintiff as to the nature and pervasiveness of the male student’s improper conduct, she had not provided evidence to allow a jury to find the university liable for creating a sex-based hostile work environment based on conduct of its non-employee male student. The court also granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim, finding that the university acted promptly, by enforcing a safety plan the same day plaintiff complained of the student’s behavior, and thus “a reasonable jury could not find that university ‘knowingly permitted’ [the student] to harass [plaintiff].”
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
9/24/2025
Barringer-Brown v. Southside Va. Cmty. Coll. (E.D. Va. Sep. 24, 2025)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former professor and dean at Southside Virginia Community College proceeding pro se, sued the college for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and defamation under state law following her termination after receiving negative feedback from her supervisor, which she maintained was “bogus and defective.” The court dismissed the college as it was not a proper party under Virginia law, and instructed the plaintiff to proceed instead against the Virginia Community College System. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s discriminatory discharge claim, finding she had failed to provide a “valid comparator” or any evidence to the contrary beyond her own “lengthy self-evaluation, and her defamation claim, finding the college had sovereign immunity. In allowing her retaliation claim to proceed, the court found that plaintiff’s filing of an EEOC charge falls under Title VII protected activity and may be pretext as she was terminated two weeks thereafter.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation
Date:
4/5/2024
Swender v. Garden City Cmty. Coll. (D. Kan. Mar. 29, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former president of Garden City Community College, brought contract and tort claims against the College and its outside counsel after a controversy involving a student protest at a Board of Trustees’ meeting led to the end of plaintiff’s formal employment relationship with the College. Following the Board meeting, on the advice of the College and outside counsel, plaintiff issued the students a No Trespass Order that was lifted when the students sued. After plaintiff and the College entered into a Separation Agreement, the College categorized him as an independent consultant in order to satisfy the “Continued Employment” clause of his original Employment Contract, which provided that he should still receive his full salary and benefits for the full term of his contract even if he ceased to be president. As an independent consultant, however, he was no longer eligible for certain retirement benefits. In permitting plaintiff’s contract claim to proceed against the College, the court found he had sufficiently alleged that the Separation Agreement incorporated the terms of the Employment Contract by reference, including its “Continued Employment” clause. It rejected the College’s Release Clause affirmative defense, finding that the clause released the College from claims arising from actions taken up to the time of the Settlement Agreement and that the alleged miscategorization occurred afterwards. The court found plaintiff’s malpractice claims against the College and its outside counsel related to their advice to issue the No Trespass Order were time-barred.
Topics:
Contracts | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Governance | Governing Boards & Administrators
Date:
12/15/2023
Dennison v. Ind. Univ. of Pa. (3rd Cir. Dec. 12, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former Executive Director of Housing, Residential Living and Dining at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, brought discrimination and First Amendment retaliation claims against the University and University officials after she was first demoted to Director of Residence Life and then had her position eliminated with staff reductions at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. Plaintiff alleged that she was terminated for unilaterally implementing a contactless checkout process when the University closed its residential facilities in March 2020. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on her First Amendment retaliation claim, the Third Circuit held that plaintiff’s speech defending her decision to implement the checkout process was not protected because it was pursuant to her duties as a University employee. Her sex discrimination claim failed because she should not show that the University’s decision in favor of flatter, streamlined organization in her demotion was pretextual and because her responsibilities were given to another woman. Her age discrimination claim similarly failed because she was unable to show that the University’s preference for efficiency or her supervisor’s ultimate loss of confidence in her leadership were pretextual.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
12/15/2023
Khlafa v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ. (D. Or. Dec. 12, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former information specialist at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), proceeding pro se, brought age and other discrimination claims against OHSU after he signed a Separation Agreement, which included a broad Mutual Release of All Claims, ending his employment the following day. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed in his age discrimination claim because the Separation Agreement did not provide plaintiff with a 21-day period to consider the agreement or a 7-day period to revoke after execution as required for a knowing and voluntary release under the ADEA as amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). It granted summary judgment to OHSU on his other discrimination claims because he provided no evidence to support his claim that he signed the Separation Agreement under duress, noting, in particular, that he was represented by counsel at the time.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff
Date:
10/27/2023
Medina v. Univ. of Utah (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023)
Order and Judgment affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, the director of BioKids, the University of Utah School of Biological Sciences (SBS) childcare center, brought procedural due process, contract, and state-law retaliation claims against the SBS Director and the University after her employment was (1) terminated through a Reduction in Force (RIF) when the School transferred management of BioKids to the University’s Center for Child & Family Resources as operational needs changed during the coronavirus pandemic, and then (2) reinstated when the arrangement expired. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Tenth Circuit held that plaintiff waived her procedural due process claim by not exercising her appeal rights under the University’s RIF policy. Her breach of contract claim failed because the RIF policy under which she was terminated was itself a part of her employment contract with the University. Her state-law retaliation claim failed because (1) rather than expressing concern that a planned expansion in BioKids’ capacity would violate state licensing requirements she succeeded in securing a variance from the Utah Department of Health to maintain the center’s compliance, and (2) she pointed to no evidence suggesting that she made a good faith report to the University that she anticipated any regulatory violation.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Due Process | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff
Date:
9/29/2023
Bird v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (M.D. Ga. Sep. 26, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former University Dual Enrollment Director, brought Title VII and IX claims for a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, as well as claims under Georgia’s Whistleblower Act. Plaintiff alleged that after she refused a hug from her supervisor in February of 2019, she was subject to a written reprimand, and her position was pretextually eliminated through a Reduction in Force (RIF) in November of 2020. The University asserted that plaintiff was reprimanded for sending a controversial programmatic email to external constituents, which upset University business partners and required presidential involvement to resolve, and that her position was eliminated due to COVID-era cost saving efforts at a period with low programmatic enrollment. In granting summary judgment to the University the court found that a single hug was insufficiently severe and/or pervasive, that the reprimand was not materially adverse as it resulted in no reduction in compensation, and that even if the latter were adverse that there was no casual between either the reprimand or the RIF, since plaintiff did not file an internal complaint until after she received notice of the RIF in July of 2020. The court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the Whistleblower claim.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
9/15/2023
Gray v. Bd. of Trs. of the Ga. Military Coll. (M.D. Ga. Sep. 13, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Administrative Assistant at Georgia Military College, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College after her position was eliminated in June 2020 in a reduction in force (RIF), alleging that it eliminated her position because she had requested additional measures to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus due to her “underlying health conditions” and that it did not consider her for other open positions because she is African American. The court granted summary judgment to the College on her discrimination claim, finding that of the two positions plaintiff applied for one was filled by an African American and one remained unfilled for a year. In granting summary judgment to the College on her retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the court held that a “vague request for accommodations due to ‘underlying health conditions’” was insufficient to constitute protected activity.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

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.