Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Turner v. Bd. of Supervisors of the Univ. of La. Sys. (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2023)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University.  Plaintiff, a former tenured English professor at Nicholls State University, brought a federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference claim and state-law disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging that following her diagnosis with irritable bowel syndrome and approval for intermittent FMLA leave, the University nevertheless required her to submit doctor’s notes for each absence and reassigned her to the Writing Lab allegedly as a way to force her to retire.  In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Fifth Circuit found that her interference claim failed because the University had required the documentation only for plaintiff to collect paid sick leave for her otherwise unpaid FMLA leave.  Her retaliation claim failed because she had not identified any protected activity in her opening brief, and her discrimination claim failed because she admitted that her request to teach all of her classes online would have required the University to reassign adjunct professors already scheduled to teach the classes. 

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Foley v. Drexel Univ. (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2023)

    Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of philosophy at Drexel University, brought hostile work environment and retaliation claims against the University and the chair of the Department of English and Philosophy alleging “a plethora of acts that she contends show discrimination based on sex and retaliation for the majority of her time at Drexel, between 2009 and 2022.” The court deemed some of plaintiff’s claims time-barred, to the extent that they were discrete and actionable events that occurred outside of the limitations period. It permitted plaintiff to proceed under the theory of continuing violation, however, as to allegations that “do not appear to be actionable, discrete discriminatory acts,” such as “sabotage” of dinners with visiting scholars, a requirement that she seek permission from a male adjunct professor to teach a course, and disagreements about administrative matters.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    Pogorzelska v. VanderCook Coll. of Music (N.D. Ill. June 5, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student at VanderCook College of Music, brought Title IX claims against the College, alleging that it exhibited deliberate indifference to her reports of off-campus sexual assault and subsequent on-campus harassment and that it retaliated against her for making the reports. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her deliberate indifference claim as to the assault, finding that a jury could conclude from email correspondence and disputed statements in the record that College investigators believed the respondent had committed the assault but unreasonably imposed limited sanctions in hopes of promoting a “healing process.” It also permitted her to proceed on her deliberate indifference claim as to the subsequent harassment, finding triable issues of fact as to (1) whether two incidents constituted harassment and (2) whether the College’s decision not to adjust or further enforce its no-contact order was clearly unreasonable. It granted summary judgment to the College, however, on plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding insufficient evidence of materially adverse actions that were caused by plaintiff’s reports. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Semelka v. The Univ. of N.C. (N.C. App. June 6, 2023)

    Opinion reversing denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former tenured professor of radiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, brought retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials under the North Carolina Whistleblower Act after he was terminated for false representations in reimbursement requests. In 2016, plaintiff complained that, among other things, his Department Chair ignored safety concerns. When a University investigation found no wrongdoing, plaintiff hired counsel to prepare for litigation. He then requested his Department reimburse him for $30,000 in legal fees. An audit determined that the legal services at issue were primarily personal in nature, as were nine trips he previously claimed as business travel. In prior litigation, a court held that plaintiff’s termination for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was properly made under the University’s tenure policy. Because the prior case found that the University’s audit was motivated by the unusual nature of plaintiff’s reimbursement request, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that plaintiff is precluded here from relitigating the issue of the alleged causal connection between his safety reports and his subsequent termination. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Sampay v. Am. Univ. (D.C. May 18, 2023)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former employee in the Office of Information Technology at American University, alleged retaliation after she was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and then terminated for repeated performance issues. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the D.C. Circuit held that plaintiff was unable to establish pretext, noting that although her immediate supervisor knew of her complaints to the University’s HR office about hostile treatment, she was unable to demonstrate that his supervisor, who monitored her PIP and ultimately decided on her termination, was also aware of the complaints.  

    Topics:

    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.

Register