Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
3/31/2026
Johnson v. Georgetown University (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2026)
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former Assistant Director at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, sued the university and 12 other defendants alleging Title VII discrimination, retaliation and other claims, after she was hired and terminated a month later after social media posts she made eight years prior describing her “‘hat[red]’ for Zionists” went viral. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the university finding that plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin and that her tort claims could not proceed due to procedural and substantive defects. While plaintiff argued the university had deviated from its probation policy in terminating her so swiftly, the court disagreed finding the policy “clearly afford[ed] the university the right to fire an employee for behavior that her department deem[ed] ‘unacceptable’.” The court also dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s claims against the other defendants with the exception of her claims against Canary Mission. Because Canary Mission refused to appear in the case, and did not move to dismiss plaintiff’s claims, the court permitted plaintiff to consider whether to seek a default judgment against it.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation | Social Media | Technology
Date:
3/31/2026
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, et al. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2026)
Memorandum Opinion Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Enforcement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as part of its investigation into possible discrimination against Jewish employees at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university seeking to enforce a subpoena that sought, among other things, lists of school groups and organizations “related to the Jewish religion,” including personal contact information for Penn employees in those groups. The court found that while “ineptly worded,” the EEOC’s request had an “understandable purpose.” The court rejected the university’s argument that the subpoena infringed on affected employees’ substantive due process right to informational privacy, determining that home addresses, phone numbers, and participation in campus groups did not rise to the level of “highly personal” non-public facts. The court also found that the university failed to demonstrate how disclosure would create a “serious safety risk,” and provided little evidence as to how enforcement of the subpoena would chill the affected employees’ ability to associate. The court concluded that the EEOC’s charge was valid and ordered the university to comply with the subpoena, while noting the parties agreed upon stipulation that the university need not disclose employees’ specific affiliations with particular Jewish organizations. The university intends to appeal the decision.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Investigations | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
3/26/2026
Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors – The White House (Mar. 26, 2026)
Executive Order: “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” This Order directs all executive departments and agencies, within 30 days, to include in all contracts, to the extent permitted by law, a clause stating that the contractor agrees that it will not engage in any racially discriminatory DEI activities, defined broadly to include “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g. vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” The contractor must also agree that (1) it will furnish all information and reports, including providing access to books, records and accounts to the contracting agency for purposes of assuring compliance with these requirements and (2) that the contractor recognizes that compliance with the requirements of this clause are material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of the False Claims Act. The Order directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to contracting agencies to ensure compliance with the Order, including identifying economic sectors that pose a particular risk of engaging in discriminatory DEI activities, and directs the Attorney General to prioritize potential claims under the False Claims Act. The White House also published a Fact Sheet on the Order.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
3/25/2026
Newman v. Howard Univ. School of Law, et al. (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2026)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a white former law student at Howard University proceeding pro se, sued the university, law school dean, and several administrators for breach of contract and defamation, alleging administrators lowered his grades, took away his scholarship, and subjected him to a “smear campaign,” after he sent provocative and racially charged messages to classmates and was expelled. The court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s contract claims, finding no evidence that the university lowered his grades or class ranking and concluding that the loss of plaintiff’s scholarship resulted from his failure to meet its conditions. The court also granted summary judgment for the university on one of plaintiff’s defamation claims, concluding the dean’s statement that plaintiff harassed her and other students was a fair characterization in light of complaints from several students. However, the court allowed plaintiff’s remaining defamation claims to proceed, finding a reasonable jury could infer the dean’s statements, including one accusing plaintiff of saying “African Americans suffer from hive mind,” were made with malice given her prior frustration with plaintiff and her decision to initiate charges on behalf of unnamed students.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students
Date:
3/23/2026
Department of Education Opens Two Title VI Investigations into Harvard University (Mar. 23, 2026)
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has opened two new investigations into Harvard University for alleged Title VI violations. Specifically, OCR will investigate (1) whether Harvard continues to use “illegal race-based preferences in admissions” despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard; and (2) allegations of “ongoing antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus and the institution’s purported failure to protect Jewish students.” Additionally, OCR issued a letter of Impending Enforcement Action based on the university’s “continued refusal to provide requested information related to its admissions process.” OCR has given the university 20 calendar days to comply or be faced with enforcement actions, including referral to the Department of Justice.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
3/20/2026
United States of America v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2026)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the Department of Justice (DOJ), sued Harvard University claiming Title VI violations based on its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The complaint claims that the university was deliberately indifferent to discrimination that occurred on campus against Jewish and Israeli students and failed to consistently enforce its campus policies in cases where Jewish and Israeli students were the victims of harassment. The complaint further accuses the university of failing to discipline faculty and staff who endorsed student demonstrations by canceling class or dismissing students early to allow them to participate. The DOJ asks the court to: declare that the university has discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students in violation of Title VI; order the university to enforce its policies and impose discipline on students and faculty who violate those policies; declare the university is in material breach of its contracts and assurances of compliance under Title VI; rescind and award the United States restitution of all federal grant payments made during the period of alleged noncompliance; and appoint an independent outside monitor, approved by the government, to ensure compliance with all injunctive and equitable relief ordered by the court.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
3/17/2026
Education and Workforce Committee Release Report on Antisemitism in Higher Education (Mar. 17, 2026)
The Education and Workforce Committee published a report on antisemitism in higher education, the result of ongoing committee investigations and hearings on the topic which began in late 2023. The report calls on university leaders to do more to combat antisemitism on their campuses including adopting a robust definition of antisemitism, strengthening policies governing campus protests and ensuring consistent enforcement of those policies, and ensuring that university governing boards are engaged and intellectually diverse. The report also recommends that Congress pass the Civil Rights Protection Act, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rouge Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act (DETERRENT) and legislation requiring U.S. universities to make their syllabi at their overseas and satellite campuses publicly available.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
3/3/2026
Doe v. Northwestern University (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2026)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of Jewish students who attend Northwestern University, sued the university for Title VI violations and breach of contract based on the university’s response to on-campus demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas conflict and alleged acts of antisemitism. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, finding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that (1) the university had actual knowledge of the alleged antisemitic incidents or (2) its response to the on-campus encampment was “clearly unreasonable,” given it issued warnings, involved campus police, and negotiated the encampment’s removal in less than a week. In light of the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state contract claims.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
2/26/2026
Akoju v. University of New Hampshire (D. N.H. Feb. 26, 2026)
Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a former graduate student at the University of New Hampshire proceeding pro se, sued the university alleging violations of Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment after the school terminated her enrollment, ended her SEVIS status, and evicted her from her dorm following her failure to pay more than $14,000 in outstanding charges on her student account. The court denied plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), finding that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her claims because she received adequate notice of both the registration deadline and the consequences of failing to pay her balance. The court also found that the university’s actions were based on legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons that were consistent with institutional policies and not a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Although the court acknowledged that plaintiff could suffer significant harm without injunctive relief, including the loss of her F-1 visa status, it found that this harm did not outweigh the deficiencies in her claims.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Immigration | International Students | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Student Housing | Students
Date:
2/26/2026
Wynn v. University of Toledo (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2026)
Opinion Affirming Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Director of Labor/Employee Relations and HR Compliance at the University of Toledo, sued the university alleging race discrimination and retaliation after he was denied a promotion, terminated, and arrested following his failure to return a university-issued laptop. The district court granted summary judgment for the university, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext because the university offered legitimate, well-supported reasons for each action, including (1) evidence that another candidate was more qualified for the promotion; (2) extensive documented performance problems supporting termination; and (3) a reasonable, non-retaliatory basis for involving law enforcement after plaintiff failed to return his laptop.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination

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.