Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
7/19/2024
Doe v. Univ. of S. Ind. (S.D. Ind. July 11, 2024)
Order overruling Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order on Plaintiff’s Use of Pseudonym. Plaintiff, a student at the University of Southern Indiana, brought Title IX claims against the University after he was suspended for sexual harassment. Though the court had previously granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to proceed under pseudonym, “in the wake of recent Seventh Circuit caselaw,” it “ordered the parties to show cause as to why this case should or should not proceed under pseudonym,” and the magistrate judge found plaintiff failed to demonstrate the required “special circumstances.” In overruling plaintiff’s objection, the court held plaintiff’s assertion of previous social media threats and an online petition that seemed to urge the University to hold him accountable were insufficient to warrant anonymity because they indicated that his identity was already known. It held that the magistrate judge did not err in finding that his relocation to a different state mitigated against anonymity, noting plaintiff “has designated no evidence that his location is unknown to the public or that anyone has harmed him physically when he resided on [the University’s] campus or at his new place of residence. It similarly noted that “[t]he Seventh Circuit has clearly held that the confidentiality of an underlying Title IX proceeding is immaterial to the question of whether a Title IX private right of action can proceed under pseudonym in federal court.”
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
7/12/2024
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S. July 1, 2024)
Opinion reversing the judgment of the Eighth Circuit. Corner Post, a truck stop and convenience store that opened in 2018, accepts payments via debit cards. In 2021, it joined a suit against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to challenge a regulation promulgated in 2011 under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, alleging that the regulation permits payment networks to charger higher fees than allowed by the underlying statute. The district court dismissed the claim as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2401(a), which provides the default statute of limitations of “six years after the right of action first accrues” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that “when plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a final agency action, the right of action accrues, and the limitations period begins to run, upon publication of the regulation.” In reversing, the Supreme Court held that “[a]n APA claim does not accrue for purposes of §2401(a)’s 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action” and “[b]ecause Corner Post filed suit within six years of its injury, §2401(a) did not bar its challenge.”
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Date:
6/7/2024
State v. Conn. State Univ. Org. of Admin. Faculty. (Conn. June 4, 2024)
Opinion reversing vacatur of the arbitration award. In 2018, the former director of student conduct at Central Connecticut State University was arrested following an alleged domestic violence incident at his home. The University terminated him after its internal investigation, based largely on the police incident report, found his off-duty behavior made him unsuitable to discharge his on-campus responsibilities. Criminal charges were later dismissed, and a finding of neglect was reversed. The Union contested the termination, and an arbitrator found that the University’s investigation did not establish the grievant’s guilt by clear and convincing evidence and ordered his reinstatement and other remedies. The trial court denied the Union’s motion to confirm the award and granted the University’s motion to vacate. Applying its own precedent for evaluating when “an arbitration award reinstating a terminated employee violates public policy,” the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed, finding that (1) no explicit public policy prohibits grievant’s reinstatement; (2) though his position was one of public trust, other University employees had been arrested and not terminated; (3) the arbitrator’s factual findings did not establish that the off-duty conduct was so egregious as to require termination; and (4) the arbitrator’s findings similarly did not indicate a substantial risk that the grievant would engage in the same behavior in the future.
Topics:
Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Date:
5/31/2024
Cook v. Univ. of S. Cal. (Cal. App. May 24, 2024)
Opinion affirming denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Southern California, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University alleging that she was harassed and constructively terminated after she reported discrimination and failure to accommodate health-related time-off requests. The University moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement executed as a condition of plaintiff’s employment. The trial court denied the motion, finding the agreement unconscionable. The California Court of Appeals affirmed, finding a “low degree of procedural unconscionability due to the adhesive nature of the agreement” and a high degree of substantive unconscionability. In finding substantive unconscionability, the court noted that (1) the scope of the agreement applied to all claims against the University, whether or not they were related to plaintiff’s employment; (2) the agreement was of unlimited duration and could be revoked only by a written document signed by the University’s president; and (3) the agreement unilaterally required plaintiff to arbitrate claims against all entities related to the University, though it did not require those entities to arbitrate claims against plaintiff. Noting that severance may be denied when there is more than one unconscionable provision, it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “finding that unconscionability permeated the arbitration agreement as a whole” and declining to sever the provisions.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Date:
5/31/2024
Doe v. Univ. of Pa. (3rd Cir. May 24, 2024) (unpub.)
Opinion affirming denial of anonymity. Plaintiff, who enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania in 2020, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she was suspended for a year and a half for academic dishonesty. She alleged that the professor who reported the misconduct had discriminated against her by grading her unfairly and denying her requests for extensions, and that the dishonesty investigation was in retaliation for her reporting the alleged discrimination. The district court denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym. In affirming, the Third Circuit found plaintiff’s assertion that she might suffer embarrassment and economic harm by proceeding absent a pseudonym insufficient to allege a reasonable fear of severe harm.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students
Date:
5/24/2024
Weinik v. Temple Univ. (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former clinician at Temple University Hospital and clinical professor at the University’s School of Medicine, brought due process, contract, and defamation claims against the University and two former residents after he was terminated for alleged sexual and other misconduct. Following investigations of alleged inappropriate conduct with a resident and patients, the Hospital terminated his medical privileges. After alleged threatening behavior while his appeal was pending, the Hospital issued a Security Alert to security staff and potentially threatened individuals. When the appeal was denied, the University terminated his academic employment, and the Hospital notified the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) of the revocation of his privileges. In granting summary judgment to the defendants on his defamation claims, the court held that (1) statements made by a medical resident complainant in the Hospital’s peer review process were protected by quasi-judicial immunity, (2) other statements made in the context of this process were protected by statutory immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), (3) the security alert was conditionally privileged and no facts suggested it was disseminated with malice or negligence, and (4) there was a statutory duty to report the loss of privileges to the NPDB. It found that his contract claim was barred by HCQIA immunity and that the Hospital’s procedures satisfied the procedural requirements of the HCQIA and, accordingly, provided him with sufficient due process.
Topics:
Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation
Date:
5/24/2024
Nelson v. St. Catherine Univ. (D. Minn. May 21, 2024)
Order denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at St. Catherine University, brought Bankruptcy Code automatic stay violation and common law intrusion upon seclusion claims against both the University and its outside counsel (the Firm), and alleged that the Firm violated multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In May 2023, as a “Collection Action” brought by the Firm on behalf of the University was ramping up before a district “Collection Court,” plaintiff filed for bankruptcy before a federal “Bankruptcy Court.” Following the Bankruptcy Court issuing notice of the “Bankruptcy Matter” Plaintiff was arrested on a bench warrant from the Collection Court. Then, after plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Firm and University additional information and the Firm was added to the Bankruptcy Matter, the Firm did not notify plaintiff’s counsel of a rescheduled hearing in the Collection Action. Once plaintiff’s counsel notified the Collection Court of the Bankruptcy Matter, the Collection Action was stayed. Subsequently, Plaintiff initiated a tertiary civil action against the Firm and University related to these alleged actions. Upon finding no irreconcilable conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and the FDCPA that would repeal the FDCPA provisions by implication, the court found plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to proceed on her FDCPA improper communication, false or misleading representations, threat to take action, and unfair practices claims. Noting that the FDCPA claims were largely predicated on the same underlying facts, the court declined to refer the Bankruptcy Code violation claims to the Bankruptcy Court. It likewise retained jurisdiction over her tort claims.
Topics:
Bankruptcy & Student Debt | External Counsel | General Counsel | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Taxes & Finances | Tort Litigation
Date:
5/17/2024
Monge v. Univ. of Pa. (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2024)
Memorandum denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former anthropology professor and museum curator at the University of Pennsylvania, brought defamation, false light, defamation by implication, and civil aiding and abetting claims against, among others, the University and its former president and provost in the wake of a public controversy surrounding her work with human remains from the 1985 police bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia. Plaintiff alleged that a former student, whom she had accused of “unlawful and disturbing” conduct, tried to “cancel” her by falsely reporting to University officials and the media that she had mishandled the remains. After media and professional associations condemned her, the University demoted her and issued a statement describing her actions as “insensitive, unprofessional, and unacceptable.” In permitting her defamation and false light claims to proceed, the court held, first, that plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure, noting her use of the remains in a Coursera course. It then found she had sufficiently pled actual malice, noting her assertions that defendants (1) had previously not acted when she reported the student’s conduct and (2) published the statement without an investigation by the Institutional Review Board. In permitting her defamation by implication claim to proceed, the court found it plausible that the defendants would have known that their statements would hurt her professional reputation. In permitting her civil aiding and abetting claim to proceed, it found her assertions sufficient to allege that the University defendants had acted in concert with the former student.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Research | Research Misconduct | Tort Litigation
Date:
5/3/2024
Pa. State Sys. of Higher Educ. v. Pa. State Sys. of Higher Educ. Officers Ass’n (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 1, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion vacating arbitration award. In 2021, Kutztown University suspended and then terminated one of its patrol officers after a group of student activists called attention to a number of his politically charged public social media posts in which he identified himself as a University police officer, expressed disparaging views of minorities, and appeared to valorize excessive use of force by police. An arbitrator sustained the Officers Association’s grievance, finding that because the University did not have a social media policy the grievant officer had not been put on notice that his off-duty social media posts could result in discipline, and directed the University to reinstate him with full back pay, benefits, and seniority. In vacating the arbitration award, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania invoked the public policy exception to the courts’ traditional deference to arbitration awards, noting that the award violated “the well-defined and dominant public policy against discrimination,” which is established in federal and state law and reflected in the University Police Department’s disciplinary policy prohibiting discrimination.
Topics:
Collective Bargaining | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Date:
4/5/2024
Puentes v. Union Coll. (N.D. N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024)
Memorandum-Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Union College, brought discrimination, contract, and multiple tort claims against the College after she was unenrolled for noncompliance with its policy that all students must receive a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccination. Plaintiff requested an exemption, citing her “biblical beliefs,” an alleged severe reaction to her second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and immunity from a prior infection. When local media reported that plaintiff had been expelled, the College denied it was an expulsion and declined to discuss more than its general policy. Plaintiff alleged, however, that members of the Board of Trustees questioned the truthfulness of her account. The court dismissed her discrimination claims, finding only broad and cursory allegations. It dismissed her contract and promissory estoppel claims as time-barred under New York’s four-month statute of limitations for challenging determinations of public bodies and administrative agencies. In dismissing her negligence claim, the court declined to find that the College assumed a special duty not to subject her to a risk of a reaction to a vaccine by virtue of its supervision of her health through her visits to the College health clinic, citing the limited scope of duties for universities and New York’s prior rejection of the in loco parentis doctrine. It dismissed her libel and slander claims, finding no allegation of special damages or per se actionability. Finally, although dismissal of the breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and negligence per se claims was with prejudice as defendants sought, the court – while expressing skepticism re the likelihood of success – allowed that plaintiff might replead her other claims.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | 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.