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:
Grabowski v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (9th Cir. Jun 13, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding dismissal. Plaintiff, a former member of the track team at the University of Arizona, brought Title IX deliberate indifference and retaliation claims against the University and §1983 claims against two coaches, alleging that he experienced homophobic bullying from other team members and that when he reported it, the University cancelled his scholarship and removed him from the team. The Ninth Circuit relied on Bostock to hold that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation. It then affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s Title IX claim, finding the pleadings insufficient to support a claim that the bullying denied him access to educational opportunities, when instead, the pleadings specified that his grades and relationships with students outside the running program remained exemplary. It reversed dismissal of his retaliation claim, finding that the timeline of events, coupled with additional allegations that his coaches directed antagonistic comments and actions towards him, was sufficient to allege causation. It affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s §1983 claim against the coaches, holding that caselaw does not clearly establish a property right in an athletic scholarship.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Kluge v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. (7th Cir. Apr. 7, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff, a former high school music teacher with the Brownsburg Community School Corporation who asserted that his sincerely held religious beliefs prevented him from engaging in any action to “promote gender dysphoria,” brought discrimination and retaliation claims against Brownsburg after he was forced to resign rather than comply with the school’s Name Policy requiring teachers to call students by their first names as listed in the school’s database. The school initially permitted him to refer to all students by their last names only, but it withdrew the accommodation because it was harming students and disrupting the learning environment. In affirming summary judgment in favor of Brownsburg on his failure to accommodate claim, the Seventh Circuit held that while plaintiff had met his prima facie burden, the school had sufficiently demonstrated that continuing the accommodation posed an undue burden on its mission of educating students according to its established theory and practice. The court similarly held that plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed because (1) the school worked with him for a full school year to find a workable adjustment and (2) he presented no evidence of pretext regarding the school’s determination that the accommodation had harmed students.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | 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.