Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    OCR Resolution Letter with UCLA Finding Insufficient Evidence re Response to Alleged Antisemitic Harassment (Jan. 13, 2025)

    Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), resolving a complaint that alleged the University failed to respond promptly or effectively to alleged harassment based on shared Jewish ancestry in 2018. During a Students for Justice in Palestine conference on the University’s campus, students expressed concern related to potential harassment, before, during, and after the conference. Following its investigation, OCR concluded that the University’s response to the alleged harassment did not violate federal civil rights requirements. Specifically, OCR found the University took timely, reasonable, and effective steps to address student concerns by (1) working to align time, place, and manner restrictions while permitting the conference to be a private event; (2) working with students and campus security prioritizing safety; (3) providing students the opportunity to present counter-messaging before and during the conference; (4) ensuring University administrators were present and accessible throughout the conference and afterwards; (5) widely publicizing how to file a complaint with the University regarding harassment; and (6) publishing an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times from the University Chancellor warning of the dangers of antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    OCR Resolution Agreement with Lehigh University re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 13, 2025)

    Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Lehigh University resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted that OCR was concerned that the University had not evaluated whether individual incidents of alleged harassment or aggregate incidents of alleged harassment that occurred during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 academic years contributed to a hostile environment for students based on shared ancestry. OCR noted the important steps taken by the University to fulfill its Title VI obligations with respect to shared ancestry through coordinated events and programs, as well as communication from University leadership. The Agreement set forth the University’s commitment to: (1) revise its nondiscrimination policies and procedures; (2) conduct annual training for all employees, staff, and students; (3) engage in file reviews; (4) administer a climate survey; and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Publishes New Resource on Resolving a Hostile Environment under Title VI (Jan. 10, 2025)

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a new resource titled “Resolving a Hostile Environment Under Title VI: Discrimination Based on Race, Color, or National Origin, Including Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics.” The Resource is intended to help school communities in understanding their obligations under Title VI, explores considerations for schools to take into account when taking action to resolve a hostile environment, and provides numerous examples of former Resolution Letters and Resolution Agreements.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    OCR Resolution Agreement with John Hopkins University re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 7, 2025)

    Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and John Hopkins University resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted that OCR considered documentation of 99 incidents of alleged harassment on the basis of shared ancestry that were reported to the University from October 2023 through May 2023. OCR further reviewed the University’s Policy and Procedures, correspondence to the University community, and recognized the University’s proactive response to some incidents that could contribute to a hostile environment for students, while also identifying potential concerns regarding the University’s fulfillment of its Title VI obligations responsive to alleged discriminatory conduct. The Agreement sets forth the University’s commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, and students, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, and (4) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    OCR Resolution Agreement with Rutgers University re Title VI Compliance (Jan. 2, 2025)

    Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Rutgers University resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted OCR’s compliance concerns regarding both potential different treatment of students based on their shared ancestry, as well as the University’s response to reports of alleged harassment and possible hostile environments for students based on their national origins (including shared Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and/or South Asian ancestry). OCR’s investigation considered over 100 reports from students, employees, and members of the public alleging Jewish/Israeli-based discrimination and/or harassment during academic years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. OCR’s investigation also surfaced concerns as to if the University adequately evaluated whether reported or investigated harassment created a hostile environment for students, potentially permitting a hostile environment to persist unmitigated. OCR found that the University responded to reported incidents individually but was less effective in considering putative cumulative, hostile effects on the environment and remediating those effects on impacted students. Lastly, OCR expressed concerns for consistent treatment of students based on their national origin with respect to implementation of University policies and procedures governing student conduct and events on campus, such as doxxing. The Agreement sets forth the University’s commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, students, and officers, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, (4) issue a statement to all University students and employees that the University does not tolerate acts of discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of national origin, including shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, (5) conduct listening sessions between relevant University administrators and representatives from relevant affinity groups, and (6) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    OCR Resolution Agreement with Five Campuses in the University of California System re Title VI Compliance (Dec. 20, 2024)

    Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Five Campuses within the University of California System resolving complaints that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Palestinian, and/or Arab ancestry. The Agreement resolved nine complaints filed with OCR against five University of California (UC) campuses in Los Angeles (UCLA), Santa Barbara (UCSB), San Diego (UCSD), Davis (UCD), and Santa Cruz (UCSC). The associated Resolution Letter noted concerns that the University campuses may have failed to respond promptly or effectively to possible hostile environments based on national origin/shared ancestry when: (1) the alleged harassing conduct or protests involved First Amendment-protected speech and the Universities appeared to have not adequately evaluated whether the conduct created a hostile environment based on shared ancestry; and (2) some of the Universities’ responses to alleged shared ancestry harassment may have failed to remedy the effects of a potential or apparent hostile environment and prevent a recurrence of the alleged harassment. OCR further noted that more than 150 complaints were made with regard to campus protests and encampments, articulating allegations of (1) violent and threatening speech; (2) unwanted filming and doxing; (3) reported checkpoints across campus; and (4) alleged failures by campus police to protect student protestors when they were violently attacked, injured, and intimidated by counter-protestors, including third parties. The Agreement sets forth the Universities’ commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, officers, and students, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, (4) obtain OCR approval for any revisions to relevant University policies and procedures, and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    OCR Resolution Agreement with the University of Cincinnati re Title VI Compliance (Dec. 20, 2024)

    Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the University of Cincinnati resolving a complaint that the latter responded inadequately to alleged discrimination based on shared Jewish and Palestinian ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted that the University had notice of approximately two dozen reports of alleged harassment based on Jewish or Palestinian ancestry, during the 2023-2024 academic year. OCR’s investigation found that the University was under responsive to reports of shared ancestry harassment it received, in that if the underlying speech was protected no further action was taken to remediate potential harm occasioned by the speech. OCR reiterated institutional obligations to address alleged harassment even if a complaint could not identify a perpetrator by name; the conduct was not directed at a specific individual; the conduct involved multiple perpetrators or a registered student organization; or the conduct occurred off campus. The Agreement sets forth the University’s commitment to: (1) provide training to investigators, staff, officers, and students, (2) conduct a climate assessment, (3) engage in file reviews, (4) revise University policies and procedures, and (5) report out regarding training, assessment, and reviews. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    Rageh v. Univ. of N.C. (M.D. N.C. Dec. 10, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a medical doctor, over the age of forty, and of Egyptian national origin alleged that during his ophthalmology fellowship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University discriminated against him and retaliated against him based on his national origin and age, under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff also brought claims for defamation per se, breach of contract, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (hereinafter referred to as state law claims). Plaintiff was in a two-year fellowship at the University to receive training in ophthalmology. During his time in the program, he alleged one of his supervising physicians mocked his accent, criticized him for mispronunciation, and frequently allowed younger residents to participate in operations more than him. Plaintiff alleges the same supervising physician refused to work with him after expressing unjustified concerns about plaintiff’s skills and issues with patient safety, and after plaintiff brought his concerns to a supervisor, he alleges he was retaliated against when the University shortened his fellowship to one year. Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and alleges the University subsequently terminated his fellowship. Plaintiff contends that he was informed by the University’s fellowship director that he was terminated because he filed the EEOC complaint, and the fellowship director informed plaintiff’s potential employers and state licensing boards that plaintiff was relieved from seeing patients due to safety concerns. The court allowed the ADEA claim, and Title VII claim based on denial of training opportunities to proceed, based on plaintiff’s allegations that (1) he was over forty years old during the fellowship, (2) the supervising physician provided him with fewer training opportunities than younger residents, (3) the supervising physician expressed concerns about plaintiff’s age to the fellowship director before plaintiff’s fellowship had even started, and (4) plaintiff’s position as a protected class member. However, the court found plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting his claim that his fellowship was shortened and then terminated due to either his age or his national origin, and as such, it dismissed the ADEA and Title VII claims related to the addended length and subsequent termination of the fellowship. It denied the University’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding plaintiff’s claim that the fellowship director informed him that he was terminated because of his EEOC filing was sufficient to give rise to a plausible inference of retaliation. The court dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims against the University, but allowed the defamation per se claim to proceed against the fellowship director based on the allegation that the director informed plaintiff’s prospective employers that he was terminated due to patient safety concerns. For the same reason, the court permitted the interference with prospective economic advantage claim to proceed. Finally, the court allowed plaintiff to proceed with his wrongful interference with employment contract based on both the fellowship director and supervising physician’s purported knowledge of his employment contract, alleged false allegations made by the supervising physician about plaintiff’s skills with intent to induce the University to breach the contract, and the fellowship director’s steps to allegedly induce the University to breach it’s employment contract with plaintiff based on his filing with the EEOC.  

    Topics:

    Compliance & Risk Management | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report on Antisemitism (Dec. 18, 2024)

    The U.S. House of Representatives created a Staff Report on Antisemitism that heavily criticized postsecondary responses to Antisemitism, claiming colleges and universities failed to stop Antisemitism on their campuses and to consistently enforce rules or impose meaningful discipline in response to such incidents. The Report made broad requests for more aggressive enforcement of Title VI to hold universities accountable and encouraged Congress to pass (1) legislation removing Title IV eligibility from any institution that boycotts or divests from Israel, (2) the DETERRENT Act, and (3) the College Cost Reduction Act.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Conduct | Students

  • Date:

    Harvey v. Mass. Inst. of Tech. (D. Mass. Dec. 6, 2024)

    Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a Black woman who is over the age of 60 and a former nurse for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) brought claims against MIT, alleging racial discrimination and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She contends her white female supervisor targeted and bullied her and treated her differently than her white colleagues. Plaintiff alleges the supervisor used racial tropes and described Black employees as “rough and tough.” Plaintiff also claims she was denied benefits and opportunities such as conference attendance and that she was removed from a working group without explanation. Plaintiff also avers that her supervisor retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave by sending a negative job performance email with numerous fabrications and assigned work for completion during leave, which ultimately resulted in plaintiff’s inability to return to her position at MIT. In allowing her claims of racial discrimination to proceed, the court found that plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to demonstrate a possible hostile work environment. It dismissed the disparate treatment claims, reasoning that plaintiff’s allegation of being denied conference attendance was insufficient to materially alter her conditions of employment. Finally, although the court found plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim was misplead since she was not denied leave, it reasoned that her allegations regarding the job performance email and assignment of tasks to complete during FMLA leave, were “more disruptive than a mere inconvenience” and considering the purported proximity to plaintiff’s FMLA request, could evidence causation in support of a claim of retaliation for taking protected leave. Thus, while noting that the allegations were sparse, the court found them adequate to proceed under a retaliation theory.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

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.

Register