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:
Doe v. Butler Univ. (S.D. Ind. Sep. 29, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Butler University, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it investigated him, but found him not responsible for stalking another student. The investigation suffered from issues stemming, in part, from the abrupt departure from the University of the investigator assigned to his case. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed on his contract claim, finding that he had sufficiently alleged that the policies and procedures in the University’s Student Handbook were an implied contract and that the University had departed from its terms by not providing parties with access to investigative materials, not providing adequate notice of changes to the scheduled hearing time, and permitting the hearing to proceed when the decision-maker did not have a copy of the investigative report. It dismissed his unjust enrichment claim, finding plaintiff had erroneously incorporated by reference his allegations of the existence of a valid contract.
Topics:
Internal Investigations | Investigations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
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.