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:
Countryman-Roswurm v. Muma (10th Cir. May 15, 2023)
Order and Judgment reversing denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and remanding. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of social work at Wichita State University and Executive Director of the University’s Center for Combating Human Trafficking, faced harassment from a colleague who allegedly spread rumors that she had secured her dual appointment through sexual favors. Among other claims, she alleged Equal Protection violations under §1983 against the University’s Provost, asserting that after responding inadequately to her initial complaint, he terminated her contract with the Center when she reported continued harassment. The district court denied the Provost’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that precedent forbids a supervisor’s acquiescence in sexual harassment. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that because the University had already launched an investigation, its precedents did not clearly establish that the Provost’s response amounted to acquiescence.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Rudman v. Oklahoma (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student and member of the Cheer Team at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO), brought deliberate indifference, retaliation, equal protection, and due process claims against UCO and its Senior Director of Student Engagement who oversaw UCO’s Spirit Teams, stemming from an off-campus, “unofficial” Cheer initiation event at which new members were allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation and harassment hazing. The court permitted her Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University and her §1983 equal protection claim against the Senior Director to proceed, finding she sufficiently alleged that the Senior Director had knowledge of similar conduct at past unofficial events and “consciously acquiesced in that conduct by refusing to respond reasonably to it.” However, it dismissed her §1983 due process claims against the Senior Director, finding that (1) the factual allegations were insufficient to allege that she deliberately created an intolerable environment on campus in order to force plaintiff to leave UCO and (2) plaintiff had not shown that a right against “constructive expulsion” was clearly established.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Retaliation | 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.