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:
Savannah State Univ. Found. v. Lewis (Ga. App. Nov. 17, 2023)
Opinion reversing denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants are the Savannah State University Foundation, Inc. and the Savannah State University Foundation Real Estate Ventures, LLC, of which the Foundation is the sole member. The LLC leases the “University Village,” an apartment facility built on land leased to it by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, to Savannah State University (SSU) for use as student housing. Plaintiff brought premises liability, nuisance, and related claims against the Foundation and the LLC after her son was shot and killed while visiting friends at the University Village. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that neither was in control or possession of the property at the time. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, holding that neither restrictions in the lease on how SSU may use the property nor rights to enter and inspect the property, which were reserved to protect the LLC’s ownership interests rather than any possessory interests, were sufficient to raise issues of material fact regarding whether the LLC retained possession or control of the property.
Topics:
Foundations & Affiliated Entities | Governance | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort LitigationDate:
Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst. Found. (Fla. App. Sep. 20, 2023)
Opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court. In 2007, Florida Atlantic University and the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, Inc. signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing that the Foundation would become a direct-support organization (DSO) of FAU. The MOU provided that FAU would appoint two members of the Foundation’s Board of Directors and that the Board would retain discretion over distribution of funds from the Foundation. The Florida Board of Governors subsequently changed its regulations on approval of DSO budgets, and the Florida Legislature amended the statute on DSOs and DSO board appointments. In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Florida Court of Appeals held that the amended DSO statute unconstitutionally impaired the MOU and that FAU had not sufficiently asserted a public policy interest in DSO oversight that was not already addressed by the two Board appointments provided for in the MOU. It also affirmed the trial court’s holding that the MOU was silent as to budgetary approval and that the amended regulation would not impair the Board’s discretion on distribution of Foundation funds.
Topics:
Foundations & Affiliated Entities | Governance
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.