Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Department of Education Rescinds Provisions of Title IX Resolution Agreements from Prior Administrations (Apr. 6, 2026)

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has rescinded provisions of resolution agreements from prior administrations, stating that portions of the agreements were based on “heavy-handed manipulation of Title IX.” OCR wrote that it will no longer monitor or enforce the agreements that were reached with five school districts and Taft College.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

  • Date:

    Hougham v. Trs. of Ithaca Coll. (N.D. N.Y. Feb. 27, 2026)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Ithaca College, brought Title IX employment discrimination claims against the college alleging university administrators discriminated against him based on sexual orientation, subjected him to harassment, and retaliated after he reported the conduct by declining to renew his associate provost appointment. The court allowed plaintiff’s Title IX discrimination claim to proceed, rejecting the college’s argument that plaintiff’s claims were precluded by Title VII. Relying on the Second Circuit precedent, the court reasoned that when Title IX allows a private right of action for a university’s intentional gender-based discrimination against a faculty member, that Title IX claim should not be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff complained of such discrimination with respect to his employment. Finally, the court dismissed plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim, finding that because the elements of the claim were identical to his hostile environment claim, the claim was duplicative.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Gross v. Univ. of Toledo (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2026)

    Opinion Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former faculty member and DEI Officer for the University of Toledo, brought Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against the university, alleging the university failed to address his complaints of discriminatory conduct from his coworkers, and that he resigned in “utter frustration” after receiving a letter terminating his contract. In denying the university’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff was timely in exhausting his administrative remedies, finding that the university’s January 2024 termination letter did not constitute a final adverse employment action for purposes of triggering the 300-day EEOC filing period because (1) the letter stated that plaintiff’s Department Chair could reverse the decision, and (2) the termination was contingent on whether plaintiff “modified his behavior.” Instead, the court found that the operative adverse action occurred at the time of plaintiff’s resignation, which the court determined to be a constructive discharge based on the allegations in his complaint, including that (1) his complaints of discrimination were ignored; (2) he was discouraged from complaining further; and (3) the discriminatory conduct kept him from performing his assigned duties.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Polk v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Schs. (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 2026)

    Opinion Affirming Denial of Plaintiff’s Request for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a former substitute teacher for Montgomery County Public Schools, sued the Montgomery County Board of Education alleging violations of Title VII and First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights, after her request for a religious accommodation from the board’s preferred pronoun policy was denied. While the district court allowed plaintiff’s Title VII claim to proceed, it dismissed her First Amendment claims and denied her motion for a preliminary injunction. In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that plaintiff’s free speech claim failed because the challenged speech fell within a teacher’s official duties under Garcetti v. Ceballos and was not constitutionally protected. The court further found that plaintiff’s free exercise claim failed because the board’s policy was a neutral, generally applicable rule that survived rational basis review under the framework articulated by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

  • Date:

    EEOC Rescinds Harassment Enforcement Guidance (Jan. 23, 2026)

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which was updated in 2024. In rescinding the guidance, the EEOC Chair cited concerns that the section on gender identity and sexual orientation, which cited Bostock, overstepped the agency’s authority. Additionally, the Chair explained that Executive Order 14168 “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” expressly directed the agency to rescind the guidance.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination

  • Date:

    State of New York, et al., v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (D.R.I. Jan. 13, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, a coalition of twelve states, sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and several subagencies alleging that HHS’s adoption of new grant funding conditions, requiring compliance with the Administration’s interpretation of Title IX as set forth in Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  In particular, the funding conditions require recipients to certify they have adopted the executive order’s definition of sex and gender, recognizing only “male” and “female” based on “biology at conception.” Plaintiffs allege that HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by reversing longstanding interpretations of Title IX without reasoned explanation and by failing to consider reliance interests, scientific evidence, and the existence of transgender individuals. Plaintiffs further allege that HHS unlawfully adopted a legislative rule without notice and comment, exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to graft an executive order onto Title IX, and violated the Spending Clause and separation of powers by imposing vague, retroactive, and coercive funding conditions not authorized by Congress. Plaintiffs contend that the challenged conditions expose them to immediate and irreparable harm by threatening the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal health, education, and research funding by subjecting them to heightened risk of enforcement under the False Claims Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the funding conditions are unlawful and unconstitutional, vacatur of the conditions across all HHS grant documents, and a permanent injunction barring defendants from implementing or enforcing the conditions.

    Topics:

    Campus Ethics Programs | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Ethics | False Claims Act (FCA) | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Research

  • Date:

    Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2025)

    Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, an LGBT+ student organization and two former student group leaders at West Texas A&M University, were granted a preliminary injunction after the university president canceled a drag show that plaintiffs organized and which they maintained was a violation of their First Amendment rights. On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court granted defendants’ motion with respect to the two individual plaintiffs, finding they no longer had Article III standing for any alleged injury, since one had left the university and the other had graduated. However, the court rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss the organizational plaintiff, holding (1) an unincorporated association holds the capacity to sue or be sued in Texas; and (2) the student organization has standing because it was able to demonstrate “ongoing harm” based on the substantial likelihood of the university president canceling future drag shows that plaintiffs wished to organize. 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Student Organizations | Students

  • Date:

    Patterson v. Kent State Univ. (6th Cir. Sep. 12, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a transgender professor at Kent State, sued the university alleging Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation, First Amendment retaliation, and disability discrimination under the Rehab Act following the university’s response to plaintiff’s “weeks-long, profanity-laden Twitter tirade insulting colleagues and the university.” The Sixth Circuit concluded that, while the district court erred in finding the university had not taken any adverse employment action, plaintiff’s Title VII claims failed nonetheless because plaintiff failed to show that the university’s justification for taking the action was pretextual. The Sixth Circuit also rejected plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that “speech about internal personal disputes or management” which included “run-of-the mill ‘employee beef’” does not constitute speech on a matter of public concern. Moreover, the court reasoned, even if the tweets had involved a matter of public concern, they still wouldn’t receive protection because the university’s interest in effective administration of its services “[outweigh[ed] [plaintiff’s] interest in this kind of trash talk.” 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Department of Energy Withdrawal of DFR on Regulations Related to Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Sports Programs (Sep. 10, 2025)

    The Department of Energy (the Department) withdrew its May 16, 2025 direct final rule (DFR) that rescinded a provision requiring recipients that sponsor sports teams for members of one sex to allow members of the opposite sex to try out. In deciding to withdraw the DFR, which had received more than 21,000 comments, the Department cited its decision to focus its limited resources on advancing other priorities. Additionally, the Department is extending the effective date of the DFR “Rescinding Regulations to Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance” until December 9, 2025.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Gender Equity in Athletics | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Spectrum WT v. Wendler (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding. Plaintiffs, an LGBT+ student organization and individual members at West Texas A&M University organized a drag show to be hosted on campus, but the show was canceled by the University President. The University President “believed that drag shows discriminated against women” and sent a campus wide email announcing the cancellation and made several remarks criticizing the event.  Plaintiffs subsequently sought a preliminary injunction so they could proceed with the show, alleging that their free speech rights were violated. The district court denied the injunction, determining that the venue where the show was set to take place was a limited public forum and found that “it was not clearly established that all drag shows are inherently expressive and therefore implicate the First Amendment, and President Wendler’s cancellation of the drag show was not objectively unreasonable given the show’s ‘potential lewdness.’” The district court further determined that “conduct that does not communicate a specific message must amount to a ‘work [] of fine art’ to gain First Amendment protection.” On appeal, the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s “fine art” standard, and found that the drag show was communicating a specific message of support for the LGBT+ community. The court further held that “theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find the plaintiffs’ drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny.” The court determined the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction. 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Student Organizations | Students

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.

Register