FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Monroe v. Fort Valley State Univ. (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2024)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former director of the Head Start program at Fort Valley State University, brought False Claims Act retaliation claims against the University after she was terminated five months into her tenure for taking actions without properly vetting them with senior leadership. In affirming dismissal of the claims, the Eleventh Circuit, aligning with the other circuits to have addressed the issue, found that Congress did not abrogate sovereign immunity in the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions and held that the Regents of the University System of Georgia function as an arm of the state in its administration of the Head Start program.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | False Claims Act (FCA) | Research | Retaliation

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep.’t of Health and Human Services NPRM on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (Oct. 6, 2023)

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct. The proposed revisions to the 2005 Final Rule include updates and clarifications to the responsibilities of institutions, new terms and definitions and clarifications to the definition of “plagiarism,” changes to the Office of Research Integrity’s (ORI) procedures, and a streamlined process for appeals of ORI findings. Comments are due on or before December 5, 2023.  

    Topics:

    Research | Research Misconduct

  • Date:

    Helmig v. Univ. of Colo. Bd. of Regents (D. Colo. Sep.12, 2023)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former researcher on a limited appointment at the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research who also had an independent consulting business, brought due process and contract claims against the Board of Regents, Institute Officials, and various University compliance and audit officials after he was terminated when an investigation found violations of the University’s conflicts of interest policy.  Plaintiff alleged that the investigative report contained inaccurate and misleading statements that damaged his professional opportunities.  In permitting plaintiff to proceed on (1) his due process claims against various Institute and compliance and audit officials, and (2) his contract claims against the Board, the court found he had sufficiently alleged a property interest in his continued employment based on his limited appointment and University policies about termination of faculty members for cause.  It dismissed his due process claims against the various officials for alleged inaccuracies in the investigated report on grounds of qualified immunity.  It also dismissed his claims against the Regents in their individual capacities for want of factual allegations demonstrating their personal involvement.  

    Topics:

    Conflict of Interest | Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Due Process | Research

  • Date:

    Settlement Agreement between U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Yale Univ. (Sep. 20, 2023)

    Settlement Agreement under the False Claims Act between the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Yale University.  This agreement resolves allegations that a University researcher who received compensation from the VA failed to disclose the patents he and four co-inventors received, which disclosure was required by a Cooperative Technology Administration Agreement between the University and the VA. Of note, the VA funding was acknowledged in the patent applications.  Under the Agreement, the University and researcher agreed to pay $1,507,743.67, which included restitution for royalties not shared with the VA.  

    Topics:

    False Claims Act (FCA) | Research

  • Date:

    Croce v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trs. (Ohio. Ct. Cl. June 9, 2023)

    Decision granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff, a biomedical researcher at The Ohio State University, brought contract claims against the University after an investigation cleared him of research misconduct allegations. The Dean of the College of Medicine, however, took non-disciplinary actions against him, including removing him from an endowed chair, requiring additional training, and requiring development of data management plans. The court granted the University’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on his claim that the University had not acted sufficiently to rehabilitate his reputation as required by the University’s Policy on Research Misconduct when a researcher is cleared of allegations, finding that the policy leaves the steps the University must take to rehabilitate plaintiff’s reputation to the discretion of the University. The court also found that plaintiff’s complaint that the investigation took longer than permitted by the Policy is preempted by federal law “because Congress has established a comprehensive legislative scheme intended to promote the uniformity of research misconduct proceedings by universities using federal funds.”

    Topics:

    Research

  • Date:

    Sullivan v. The Univ. of Wash. (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2023)

    Order granting a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, members of the University of Washington’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), sought a preliminary injunction to stop the University from releasing their appointment letters, which contained personal identifying information, to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) under Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA). In granting the preliminary injunction based on this Second Amended Complaint, the court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that disclosure would abridge state and federal constitutional rights of personal security and bodily integrity, and information privacy. It also found that plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the form of threats, harassment, or reprisal, and that the balance of hardships and public interest weighed in plaintiffs’ favor. 

    Topics:

    Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Privacy & Transparency | Research