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:
Allen v. Benson (E.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2023)
Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Texas at Dallas, proceeding pro se, brought discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims against the University and multiple officials after she objected to the University’s COVID-19 testing requirement on religious grounds and was terminated after she exhausted available leave time. Plaintiff asserted that she practiced “faith-based decision making and not fear-based decision making” and that the University’s offer of a saliva test as an alternative to a nose swab was not an appropriate accommodation. Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court permitted her Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim to proceed against the University, holding that whether an accommodation of plaintiff’s beliefs would have imposed an undue hardship is a fact-intensive inquiry better resolved at the summary judgement stage or at trial. It dismissed her ADA claim for failure to allege she was a qualified individual with a disability.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Lax v. The City Univ. of N.Y. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 11, 2023)
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, five observant Jewish professors at Kingsborough Community College (Kingsborough) of the City University of New York (CUNY), brought discrimination and retaliation claims against CUNY, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, the New Caucus of the PSC, and multiple individual professors. Plaintiffs alleged that the professor defendants subjected them to a hostile work environment, conspired to exclude Jewish applicants from a New Caucus-aligned group at Kingsborough called the Progressive Faculty Caucus, and sought their removal from their jobs. They further alleged that CUNY did not take adequate corrective action. In denying CUNY’s motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claims, the court found plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that CUNY’s response to the allegations was inconsistent with findings documented in an investigative report completed by outside counsel. Turning to the retaliation claims, the court also found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that critical statements by the Kingsborough President and a delay of over a year in replacing Kingsborough’s chief diversity officer were reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | 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.