Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
12/2/2025
Clary v. Pennsylvania State Univ., et al. (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student-athlete and member of the men’s basketball team at Pennsylvania State University, brought defamation claims against the university and its head basketball coach based on a series of statements allegedly made by the coach concerning plaintiff’s departure from the team. The court held that plaintiff had sufficiently stated a defamation claim against the coach based on the coach’s statements that (1) plaintiff had refused to return to the university because his father was “after more money”; and (2) plaintiff “decided himself” that he was going to leave the university. In both instances, the court found it “reasonable to infer . . . that [the coach’s] statements caused financial harm to [plaintiff] by harming his reputation and forcing him to attend a less prestigious university.” However, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims regarding other statements made by the coach, finding the allegations lacked necessary details as to the content, audience, and timing of the statements. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claims against the university, finding no basis to impose vicarious liability since plaintiff had failed to show the coach’s statements were made within the scope of his employment or with the purpose of serving the university.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Tort Litigation
Date:
10/20/2025
Dep’t of Educ. v. Massey (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 20, 2025)
Opinion Affirming Office of Open Records Final Determinations. Petitioners, the Department of Education and Pennsylvania State University, in a set of consolidated cases, appealed the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records’s (OOR) final determinations granting a journalist from Spotlight PA access to several records regarding the Board of Trustees. OOR partially granted respondent’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request in which he sought copies of electronic documents that were created by the university and sent via an electronic system to the Departments of Education and Agriculture. The court upheld OOR’s determination, reasoning that the records requested are public records under RTKL that were received by the Departments and were therefore within the “possession, custody, or control of the Departments”, and that they are not “confidential proprietary information” as argued by petitioners.
Topics:
Electronic Discovery & Electronically Stored Information | Governance | Governing Boards & Administrators | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Technology
Date:
10/6/2025
Weiss v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Mass. Oct. 6, 2025)
Opinion Affirming in Part and Reversing in Part. Appellants-Plaintiffs, close relatives of a group of deceased individuals who had donated their bodies to Harvard Medical School, brought tort, contract, and other claims against Harvard following the indictment of a former Harvard morgue employee for conspiring to steal and sell cadaver parts and a subsequent report from a panel of external experts identifying shortcomings in university protocols for handling donor remains. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, finding that plaintiffs had failed to counter the defendants’ assertion of an affirmative “good faith” defense under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA). However, on appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, finding that plaintiffs’ allegations amounted to “peculiarly pervasive noncompliance” with the UAGA warranting an inference that the university did not act in good faith. The court noted, in particular, the lack of sufficient controls and procedures at the morgue to prevent these harms from occurring, despite the university’s knowledge that “similar misconduct had previously occurred in a strikingly similar fashion in another medical school morgue,” and that several “red flags” about the morgue employee were also “ignored or tolerated.” The court concluded that the trial court had erred in granting the university’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation
Date:
9/23/2025
Murray v. Conn. Coll. (D. Conn. Sep. 23, 2025)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Connecticut College, in a putative class action, brought negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims against the college seeking damages and injunctive relief after a data-security breach which, according to plaintiff, allowed unauthorized third-party cybercriminals to gain access to his personal identifying information (PII) and personal health information (PHI) The court rejected the college’s argument that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue, finding that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an injury from potential misuse of his data that was “sufficiently concrete, particularized, actual or imminent.” The court allowed plaintiff’s breach of contract claim to proceed, finding plaintiff made a plausible argument that, because he was required to provide PII and PIH as a condition of enrollment, it was fair to assume the college made an implicit promise to responsibly maintain his data. However, the court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claim, finding he had failed to offer any analysis of the duty question under Connecticut law.
Topics:
Cybersecurity | Data Privacy | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Privacy & Transparency | Technology | Tort Litigation
Date:
9/6/2025
Brennan v. Harris-Stowe State Univ. (Mo. App. Sep. 6, 2025)
Opinion Affirming the Circuit Court’s Judgment. Appellant, Harris-Stowe State University, appealed from a Missouri circuit court’s denial of its request for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), following a jury verdict in favor of Appellee Brennan, a full-time faculty member, on her hostile work environment claim. In affirming the circuit court’s judgment, the Court of Appeals rejected the university’s argument that it was entitled to a JNOV finding (1) the university failed to preserve several of its claims for appeal (2) plaintiff’s discrimination claims were not time-barred because they were part of a “series of interrelated events” and (3) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support every element of her hostile work environment claim.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Date:
2/20/2025
Thiry v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich. (E.D. Mich. Feb. 20, 2025)
Opinion & Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and Awarding Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, an employee at the University of Michigan filed suit against the University and three of its employees alleging discrimination and retaliation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as well as First Amendment violations under §1983. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on his claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and denied summary judgment on claims seeking monetary relief. Defendants then sought partial reconsideration of the order. In granting Defendants’ motion, the court found that it erred in previously ruling that “official-capacity claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment where a plaintiff seeks only prospective equitable relief.” The court concluded that “the University and its governing Board of Regents are constitutionally-created instrumentalities of the State of Michigan and are not ‘persons’ for purposes of Section 1983.” Finally, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because the Defendants could not be sued under §1983.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Retaliation
Date:
1/3/2025
Jill Hines v. Alex Stamos (W.D. La. Dec. 18, 2024)
Memorandum Order denying without prejudice Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, social media users with significant followings, brought a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging the Aspen Institute, the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, the Leland Stanford Junior University, the Stanford Internet Observatory, the Atlantic Counsel, the Atlantic Counsel’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and several individuals (the Defendants) caused plaintiffs’ “disfavored” viewpoints (namely, their speech concerning COVID-19 and elections) to be censored, and remain engaged in ongoing censorship. Plaintiffs allege Defendants were “active participants, if not architects, of a vast censorship scheme, and—in collaboration with government officials—actively monitored, targeted, and ultimately induced social media platforms to censor [their] speech (among many others).” The District Court initially decided the issue of arbitrability in a manner adverse to Defendants, Defendants appealed, and the Fifth Circuit held that the lower court must first determine personal and subject matter jurisdiction before considering arbitrability. On remand, the District declined to grant dismissal finding that plaintiffs were entitled to limited discovery pertaining to both jurisdiction and standing. First, the Court reasoned that plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ engaged in censorship in Louisiana by “assigning analyst[s] specifically to Louisiana, determining whether speech originated in Louisiana, tracking the speech’s spread from Louisiana, and communicating with state officials in Louisiana about supposed disinformation” was a sufficient preliminary showing of jurisdiction suggestive of “the possible existence of the requisite [minimum] contacts” with the State to oblige Defendants to bear the burdens of jurisdictional discovery, and thus, denied the motion to dismiss. Next, as to standing, it distinguished Murthy v. Missouri, 144 S. Ct. 1972 (2024), reasoning that absent a request for preliminary injunction and its corresponding heighted burden plaintiffs need not aver “that a particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff’s speech on that topic,” therefore, plaintiffs’ mere allegation that Defendants, “participation in the Election Integrity Project and Virality Project, caused plaintiffs to be censored on social media platforms” was adequate to access preliminary discovery.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Social Media
Date:
10/11/2024
Florio v. Gallaudet Univ. (D.C. Cir. Oct. 4, 2024)
Opinion disagreeing in part and affirming the judgment of the district court. Plaintiffs, four alumni of a Gallaudet University fraternity sued the University, its Board, the President, and The Washington Post for defamation after the University President referred to the fraternity as “the face of systemic racism.” The comment followed the fraternity’s reintroduction of hooded robes resembling those worn by hate groups and a resurfaced photo of members performing the Bellamy salute, wherein participants extend their right arm at an upward angle. The district court found that since the plaintiffs were not directly mentioned in the President’s statement, the comment was a non-actionable opinion, and further reasoned that the similarity between the Bellamy and Nazi salutes also made the claim substantially true and thus, non-actionable. In conducting a de novo review, the Circuit Court agreed that the statements were protected opinions, but disagreed regarding the photograph, reasoning that “each of the individuals in the photo is readily identifiable because all of their faces are visible” and the statement was made in reference to them. Notwithstanding, the Court still found the disputed statements were not actionable and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation
Date:
8/2/2024
Doe v. Syracuse Univ. (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 2, 2024)
Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student and lacrosse player at Syracuse University, brought Title IX retaliation, contract, and negligence claims against the University, alleging inadequate responses to violence in her “on-again-off-again relationship” with a male lacrosse player, particularly following an incident in April 2021 for which the male lacrosse player was eventually arrested. In dismissing her negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims, the court found plaintiff failed to allege either that (1) the University did not “maintain or keep its student housing safe from intruders” or that her assailant, whom she let into her room, was an intruder, or (2) that the University was aware of any ongoing criminal conduct against her or other students that it failed to curb. In permitting her contract claim to proceed, the court found plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the University breached (1) provisions of its student handbook regarding No Contact Orders (NCOs) when it removed the NCO between plaintiff and her assailant even though she had reported a past incident of domestic violence, and (2) the terms of its MOU between its Public Safety Department (Safety) and the Syracuse Police Department (Police) when Safety reported an alleged on-campus incident between plaintiff and her assailant to Police a week later rather than immediately as provided in the MOU.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort Litigation
Date:
8/2/2024
Butler v. Collins (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)
Opinion certifying a question to the Supreme Court of Texas. Plaintiff, a former law professor at Southern Methodist University sued the University and several individual administrators claiming negligent supervision, fraud, defamation, conspiracy-to-defame, as well as Texas common-law claims for breach of contract, and several statutory claims after being denied tenure in 2016. The District Court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the District Court’s judgment that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) preempts her fraud, defamation, and conspiracy-to-defame claims. In light of inconsistent precedent and unsure of whether tort claims asserted against employers can extend to harmful workplace conduct, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas: “Does the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act [], Texas Labor Code § 21.001, et seq., preempt a plaintiff-employee’s common law defamation and/or fraud claims against another employee to the extent that the claims are based on the same course of conduct as discrimination and/or retaliation claims asserted against the plaintiff’s employer?” The Fifth Circuit otherwise retained the appeal, held in abeyance pending response from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tenure | Tort Litigation

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.