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:
Pearson Foundation, et al. v. The Univ. of Chi. (N.D. Okla. July 31, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, two foundations and one benefactor who had committed $100 million to the University of Chicago to establish a named Institute with related programming, brought contract and fraudulent inducement claims against the University following disputes regarding Institute staffing and programing. The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed on their claim related to faculty hires, finding that although the Grant Agreement provided plaintiffs no “role or authority with respect to making appointments,” the University is nevertheless obligated to use the grant for purposes consistent with the Institute’s stated mission. The court also permitted plaintiffs to proceed on their fraudulent inducement claim alleging that the University misrepresented the extent to which it would contribute funding for salaries and student support rather than operate the Institute as a standalone entity on a perpetual basis. It dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that the University did not develop the agreed upon curriculum, finding that language in recitals stating that the Grant would be used to “create educational programs” did not preclude the University from offering existing courses through the Institute, noting that the operative language merely required the University to offer a specified number of courses.
Topics:
Contracts | Endowments & Gifts | Taxes & FinancesDate:
Hastings Coll. Conservation Comm. V. Faigman (Cal. App. June 5, 2023)
Opinion affirming denial of anti-SLAPP motion. In September 2022, the Governor of California signed into law AB 1936 designating the school formally known as the “Hastings College of Law” as the “College of Law, San Francisco.” The legislation also eliminated a seat on the College’s Board for descendants of S.C. Hastings. Plaintiffs, a group of alumni of the school and descendants of S.C. Hastings, sued, alleging, among other claims, that AB 1936 violates the contracts clauses of the California and United States Constitutions. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin the College’s Directors and Dean (College Defendants) from implementing the changes. The College Defendants moved to strike under the California anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the acts plaintiffs seek to enjoin are inseparable from their speech referring to the College by its new name, which is protected activity authorized by AB 1936. In affirming denial of the motion, the California Court of Appeals held that “even assuming that AB 1936 is a speech-related measure, it is the State’s speech, not the College Defendants’, and the alleged wrongfulness of [their] implementation of the law is not legally distinct from the alleged wrongfulness of the law itself.” Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from the protected activity.
Topics:
Endowments & Gifts | Governance | Governing Boards & Administrators | Taxes & Finances
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.