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:
3/19/2026
Hansen v. The Lutheran Univ. Ass’n. (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2026)
Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Assistant Director of Building Services at Valparaiso University, sued the university alleging violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after his position was eliminated while he was on medical leave. The court granted summary judgment for the university, finding the university had presented unrebutted evidence that it had eliminated plaintiff’s position as part of a “planned restructuring” prior to his request for FMLA leave while noting plaintiff failed to provide evidence this rationale was pretextual. In reaching its decision, the court explained that the FMLA does not guarantee reinstatement when an employee would have been terminated regardless of leave and cautioned that suspicious timing alone is insufficient to establish retaliation.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | Privacy & Transparency | Retaliation
Date:
3/11/2026
Stokes v. Boyce (N.D. Miss. Mar. 11, 2026)
Opinion Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, the former Executive Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Development at the University of Mississippi, sued the university chancellor in both his official and individual capacities alleging First Amendment retaliation and seeking reinstatement of her employment after she reposted a controversial statement regarding the killing of Charlie Kirk and was subsequently terminated. The court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding ample evidence that plaintiff’s post resulted in significant, actual disruptions to campus operations, including the cancelling of a student event, the need for increased campus police patrols outside plaintiff’s office, and increased work for a senior administrator tasked with responding to hate mail.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Social Media | Technology
Date:
3/6/2026
Kershnar v. Kolison, Jr., et al. (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026)
Opinion and Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a philosophy professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia (SUNY), sued the university’s president and provost, alleging retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, and prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment, after he was barred from teaching and banned from campus following controversial remarks he made about age-of-consent laws during a podcast appearance. The court found that, despite the offensive nature of his speech, plaintiff plausibly alleged that his statements addressed a matter of public concern and therefore were entitled to First Amendment protection. The court further found that plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the university’s order prohibiting plaintiff from contacting members of the campus community functioned as a prior restraint on his speech. Finally, the court also found that although plaintiff continued to receive his salary during the campus ban, he had sufficiently alleged retaliation, concluding that the close timing between the podcast going viral, the university president’s public condemnation of the remarks, and campus ban plausibly suggested a retaliatory motive.
Topics:
Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation
Date:
3/2/2026
Brake v. Liberty University (W.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2026)
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Title IX investigator at Liberty University, sued the university under Title IX; the Uniformed Services Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA); the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act (VWPA); and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA), after he returned from a three–year military leave, reported alleged Title IX misconduct, and was terminated for “compliance issues.” The court denied the university’s motion for summary judgment on most of the plaintiff’s Title IX claims, finding a reasonable jury could conclude his internal complaints and participation in an internal investigation constituted protected activity, even if a part of his job duties, and were a motivating factor in his termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on the portion of plaintiff’s Title IX claims that were based on other protected activity that was unknown to the university decisionmaker. The court also denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s USERRA discrimination claim, finding a jury could conclude he was denied a benefit when his cell phone stipend was not immediately restored upon his return. But it granted summary judgment on his USERRA retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff failed to show the required causation. Finally, the court denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims under VWPA and VHRA.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
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:
2/9/2026
Kilborn v. Amiridis, et al. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2026)
Opinion Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, sued several university officials bringing First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment due process, and state law defamation claims after an internal investigation concluded that he violated the school’s nondiscrimination policy based on an exam hypothetical referencing racial slurs, racially insensitive classroom remarks, and intimidating comments he made in response to student criticism. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that it fell within the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity because plaintiff sought prospective relief in the form of expungement of the investigation findings from his employment record. However, the court dismissed plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, finding that he had no entitlement to the 2% merit raise he claimed was withheld and that reputational harm alone did not establish a constitutional liberty interest. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claims based on an internal investigation findings letter that stated plaintiff had used racial slurs, denounced minorities participation in civil rights, and had referred to minorities as “cockroaches.” The court concluded that those statements were “non-actionable” because a transcript confirmed plaintiff had, in fact, made those statements – and truth was a defense to defamation. But the court allowed the plaintiff’s other defamation claims to proceed, finding statements that plaintiff had engaged in race-based harassment, intimidated or threatened students, created fears of physical safety or retaliation, and made inappropriate comments in class could “reasonably be construed as objectively verifiable.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation
Date:
11/21/2025
Grossenbach v. Arizona Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2025)
Recommendation from Magistrate Judge to District Court Judge to Deny in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at the University of Arizona, sued the university for violations of Title VII, the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and an Arizona public records law, after it declined to renew his teaching contract, which he alleged was due to complaints the university received about his advocacy on behalf of SaveCFSD, an organization he founded to combat “radical gender ideology” in his local school district. The magistrate judge rejected the university’s argument that plaintiff had failed to “timely exhaust his administrative remedies,” finding instead that the filing window was tolled until he received documents in response to his public records request. The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff had successfully pled facts that would allow one to conclude the university took actions to prevent the plaintiff from discovering his claims by “slow-walking his public records request” and falsely telling him that his contract would not be renewed because the university was going to hire a full-time faculty member to teach [his] classes.” The magistrate judge further found that the Eleventh Amendment was not a barrier to plaintiff’s constitutional claims since he was seeking prospective relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and reinstatement to his position. Finally, the magistrate judge agreed with the university that plaintiff’s Arizona public records law claim should be dismissed because plaintiff had failed to comply with “notice of claim” requirements, while noting the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to withdraw his claim.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation
Date:
11/21/2025
West v. Bd. of Trs. of Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. (N.D. Ala. Nov. 21, 2025)
Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former bus driver for Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, brought Title VII sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims against the university after she was terminated following complaints she made that her supervisor treated her more harshly than her male counterparts when she refused to work the late shift. The court denied summary judgment on her retaliatory discharge claim finding genuine issues of material fact remained, including (1) whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity; (2) whether the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment pre-dated any protected activity; and (3) whether the stated reason for her termination was pretextual. However, the court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim because plaintiff abandoned the claim.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
11/19/2025
Span v. Pinal Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2025)
Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a current professor and former Division Chair at Pinal County Community College District, filed a racial discrimination suit under Title VII alleging disparate treatment and retaliation claiming senior administrators had engaged in an “unwarranted” and “secret investigation” into his handling of a complaint regarding another faculty member and had taken other actions designed to “undermine” his ability to carry out his job duties. The court granted the college’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or retaliation under Title VII. The court determined that despite a plethora of grievances, plaintiff failed to allege any adverse employment action when he remained in his position as Division Chair until the end of his term, and there were no changes to his compensation or the privileges or conditions of his employment. The court also found plaintiff’s claim for retaliation insufficient to survive summary judgment because, once again, he failed to show any adverse employment action and his voluntary withdrawal of his application for a promotion did not amount to being denied a promotion.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | 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.