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:
Duke-Koelfgen v. Alamo Colleges Dist. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured Associate Professor of composition and literature at San Antonio College, brought First Amendment claims against the College and individual officials after she was twice disciplined for unprofessional communications related to emails she sent demanding that students be permitted to use scholarship funds to take her class even though it was outside of their degree plans and criticizing officials who had requested volunteers to cover classes for an instructor who was ill. In granting the College’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the speech in plaintiff’s emails was not protected by the First Amendment because it occurred when she was performing duties within the scope of her job responsibilities, noting that she sent the messages to College administrators in her capacity as an Associate Professor addressing College procedures.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free SpeechDate:
Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, a student organization at West Texas A&M University (WT) dedicated to raising awareness of the LGBT+ community and two of its officers, brought First Amendment claims against WT’s President and multiple officials seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages, after the President wrote the group to express his opposition to its plan to hold an on-campus a drag show that would be open to children accompanied by a parent to raise funds for LGBT+ suicide prevention. Though the President supported the mission of the event, he wrote that “[d]rag shows are derisive, divisive[,] and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent.” The court held that the President was entitled to qualified immunity, finding that because the proposed expression was potentially sexualized, at an event that was open to children, and not overtly political in nature, traditional campus public forum considerations did not apply and the President’s objections to the content were not objectively unreasonable. For these reasons, the court also denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Event Management & Facilities Use Policies | First Amendment & Free SpeechDate:
Jackson v. Wright (5th Cir. Sep. 15, 2023)
Opinion affirming denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a professor of music theory at the University of North Texas (UNT), is a leading scholar on the Austrian music theorist Heinrich Schenker. He is also director of the Center for Schenkerian Studies and founding editor of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, both of which are housed at and supported by UNT. After plaintiff contributed an article that proved controversial to a symposium in the Journal defending Schenker against charges of racism, University officials investigated the Journal’s editorial practices, removed plaintiff as editor, and suspended the Journal’s activities pending a national search for a new editor. Plaintiff brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the UNT Regents in their individual capacities, alleging an ongoing violation of his First Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In affirming denial of the Regents’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff’s claim against the Regents properly sought only prospective relief and that he had sufficiently alleged an ongoing violation that was fairly traceable to the Regents.
Topics:
Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | RetaliationDate:
Casper v. Tex. Woman’s Univ. (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Texas Woman’s University, brought due process and First Amendment claims against the University and multiple officials after an investigation substantiated a student complaint that plaintiff had engaged in demeaning conduct toward students and failed to provide required disability accommodations. The University permitted plaintiff to retain her tenure, salary, and benefits, but barred her indefinitely from teaching or performing other faculty duties. In affirming dismissal of her procedural due process claim, the Court of Appeals of Texas held that plaintiff failed to allege that she had a protectable property right in the performance of the specific duties the University barred her from performing. Her substantive due process claim similarly failed under the stigma-plus test because she did not allege that the University publicized the charges against her or revoked her tenure. Finally, her First Amendment claim failed because she failed to allege that comments she claimed she made about “the value of hard work” were either matters of public concern or made in the context of classroom discussions.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | First Amendment & Free SpeechDate:
Babinski v. Sosnowsky (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023)
Opinion reversing and dismissing. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student in the theatre program at Louisiana State University, brought due process claims against multiple professors in the department based on his assertion that he was “de facto expelled” from the program without a meaningful opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Plaintiff had submitted a “performative writing” for a course term paper that expressed his disapproval of his professor’s views in a course on “Gender, Sexuality, and Performance.” The chair of the department forwarded the paper to the LSU Police Department and the LSU Office of Student Advocacy and Accountability, though neither found an actionable violation. Plaintiff alleged that his professors then conspired to refuse to teach him, serve on his dissertation panel, or administer his general examinations, thus impeding his ability to complete the doctoral program. He subsequently earned a master’s degree in the philosophy department. In reversing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the professors, the Fifth Circuit assumed a constitutional violation but nevertheless held that plaintiff failed to show a clearly established right, finding that he had not identified a case that was sufficiently analogous to his asserted “de facto expulsion” that “dealt with the alleged tainting of the process that a school or university provided to a student.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | 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.