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:
S. Cent. Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church v. S. Methodist Univ. (Tex. App. July 26, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part summary judgment in favor of the University. In November 2019, the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University approved amendments to the University’s Articles of Incorporation to remove reference to the South Central Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church, including a provision that SMU would be “forever owned, maintained and controlled” by the Conference. Among other issues, the Conference brought breach of contract claims against the University and sought declaratory judgment that the Amended Articles and actions taken pursuant to them were void. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University. In reversing, the Court of Appeals of Texas concluded that the Conference had sufficiently pled that SMU’s previous Articles constituted a binding contract between the Conference and SMU conferring upon the Conference the right to approve any amendments to the Articles. It further concluded that the trial court erred in denying declaratory judgment that the 2019 Amendments were void.
Topics:
GovernanceDate:
In re Robert T. Keeler Maint. Fund for the Hanover Country Club at Dartmouth Coll. (N.H. July 13, 2023)
Opinion affirming denial of motion to intervene. The last will and testament of Robert T. Keeler left Dartmouth College 50% of his residuary estate “for the sole purpose of upgrading and maintaining its golf course,” which upon his death established the $1.8 million “Robert T. Keeler 1936 Maintenance Fund for the Hanover Country Club at Dartmouth College.” In July 2020, Dartmouth closed the Hanover Country Club golf course and applied under the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) to modify the restrictions on permissible use of the Fund. The Robert T. Keeler Foundation, as fiduciary for the Estate, moved to intervene, seeking to direct the Fund to the Foundation at the behest of the Estate. The trial court denied the motion and granted Dartmouth’s application. In affirming, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Fund was a completed charitable gift and that the Foundation, as a former contingent beneficiary, lacked special standing to intervene.
Topics:
Foundations & Affiliated Entities | GovernanceDate:
Vazquez v. Rider Univ. (N.J. Super. App. Div. June 29, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiffs, multiple stakeholders from the former Westminster Choir College, in consolidated cases, sued Rider University to prevent the sale of the Choir College or its relocation from its Princeton campus to Rider’s Lawrenceville campus. In 1991, Westminster merged with Rider University. In 2018, after announcing significant financial need, Rider announced a plan to sell the College to a for-profit Chinese Education Technology Company, though the deal fell through. Rider subsequently moved the College to its Lawrenceville campus. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, finding that under the terms of the Merger Agreement plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce Rider’s obligations under that Agreement. The Appellate Division reversed as to a group of students and faculty of the Choir College, finding (1) that they were third-party beneficiaries of the Merger Agreement and (2) that they had sufficiently alleged that Rider acted arbitrarily and in bad faith in its proposed sale of the College to a company not qualified to run the College to gain contractual standing to sue.
Topics:
Contracts | Financial Exigency & Institutional Merger & Closure | Governance | Real Estate Transactions | Real Property, Facilities & Construction
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.