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:
Ostrowski v. Ind. Univ. (Ind. App. May 28, 2024)
Memorandum Decision affirming denial of worker’s compensation benefits. Appellant, a former employee of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University who experienced atrial fibrillation and hip arthritis, filed a work injury claim and a federal Rehabilitation Act claim against the University after she found it too difficult to walk from the closest parking area to the campus building housing the Institute. After the parties settled the federal case, the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana affirmed the University’s denial of her work injury claim, finding that her symptoms did not constitute a compensable injury because they were “temporary and could have occurred anywhere.” In affirming the denial, the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that neither the Board’s factual conclusion that the walk on the hilly campus was routine and everyday, nor its legal conclusion that her symptoms were temporary and did not worsen her pre-existing medical conditions were clearly erroneous.
Topics:
Accessible Facilities | Compliance & Risk Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Indemnity & Insurance
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.