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:
Warman v. Mount St. Joseph Univ. (S.D. Ohio Jan. 3, 2024)
Order granting-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Mount St. Joseph University who had been diagnosed with multiple disabilities, including depression, anxiety, and brain tumors, brought various civil rights and Fourth Amendment claims under §1983 and disability discrimination claims against the University and multiple officials after he was denied a religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Plaintiff also alleged that campus police had questioned him about his decision not to receive a vaccine. In dismissing plaintiff’s civil rights claims, the court found that the University officials who established the vaccination policy were private persons and employees of a private entity who neither acted in a public function nor exercised state coercive power. It ruled that plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against the campus police officer failed, finding that no seizure took place because a reasonable person in the circumstances alleged would have believed they were free to leave, and that the officers were, accordingly, entitled to qualified immunity. In dismissing his disability discrimination claim, the court noted that though he had submitted medical documentation indicating “a medical need to avoid taking COVID vaccines,” he had not alleged what condition gave rise to this need. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Coronavirus | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Fourth Amendment & Search and SeizureDate:
Police v. Navarro Coll. (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2023)
Order and Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, an African American student at Navarro College who lived in a campus dormitory, brought Fourth Amendment claims under §1983 against the College and one of its public safety officers following an interaction that began at an off-campus apartment complex. Observing plaintiff and another student sitting outside smoking a cigar, the officer stopped them, found that plaintiff had an empty cylindrical tube that smelled of marijuana, searched a nearby exterior stairwell, and then searched their on-campus dormitory rooms. The court granted the Officer’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s illegal seizure claim up to and including the search of the stairwell, finding the allegations consistent with a Terry stop supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. However, plaintiff sufficiently alleged that his extended detention amounted to an unreasonable seizure since the officers continued to detain him despite having unearthed no evidence of criminal activity. Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged that officers abridged his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully searching his on-campus dormitory room without a warrant or consent. Plaintiff’s claims against the College failed, however, for lack of factual allegations of a policy or widespread practice of similar behavior.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Fourth Amendment & Search and Seizure
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.