Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
10/6/2023
Miller v. Univ. of Houston-Downtown (S.D. Tex. Oct. 4. 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a candidate for a tenured faculty position at the University of Houston-Downtown, brought retaliation claims against the University alleging that it denied her application in retaliation for her opposition to alleged discrimination at her previous university where she was denied tenure and promotion. In granting summary judgment to the University, the court found that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of retaliation because the reasons for her tenure denial were discussed during her interviews and a member of the search committee had called her former department chair. Nevertheless, it held that (1) concern over a previous tenure denial was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason not to hire a candidate, even for a position in which prior tenure was not listed as a requirement, and (2) plaintiff had offered no evidence to suggest that this concern was pretextual.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
10/6/2023
Powell v. Doane Univ. (D. Neb. Oct. 3, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former women’s basketball head coach at Doane University, brought sex discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after it terminated her employment when both of her assistant coaches quit mid-season and multiple players complained of abusive and erratic behavior. In granting summary judgment to the University on her discrimination claim, the court found that one comment made by the Athletic Director referring to the disputes as a “female thing” was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of pretext. The court granted summary judgment to the University on plaintiff’s retaliation claim, finding her complaints to her student-athletes about their uniforms and other alleged disparities were insufficient to give the University actual notice of discrimination under Title IX or to constitute reports of discriminatory employment practices under Title VII.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
10/6/2023
Sacks v. Tex. S. Univ. (5th Cir. Oct. 3, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former professor of law at Texas Southern University, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the school and multiple employees after she resigned alleging constructive discharge and retaliation after she filed a similar suit two years before. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII constructive discharge claim, the Fifth Circuit held that, even if “menial,” curricular changes, “extra faculty meetings,” and mandates of “new methods of attendance recording” were insufficient to allege factors that would make a reasonable person feel compelled to resign. Her retaliation claims failed because she had not alleged sufficient facts to show that her prior suit was the cause of new mandates and procedures in the law school. Finally, the court also dismissed her claims under §1983 against a colleague who “threw her hair into [plaintiff’s] face in the law school lobby” and yelled at her in a church parking lot, finding that these allegations indicated a personal conflict rather than action under color of law.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
10/6/2023
Loreto v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Sep. 07, 2023)
Report and Recommendation granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, an employee of the University of Arizona, brought disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and her former supervisor after she resigned her position and the University contested her application for unemployment compensation. Plaintiff, who was subsequently rehired for a new position, alleged that when she needed frequent restroom breaks as she recovered from a recent surgery, her supervisor denied her request for a temporary exemption from a restroom preapproval policy and delayed approval of her individual requests for restroom breaks. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding them time-barred. Turning to her retaliation claim, the Magistrate Judge found that the portion of her claim related to the University’s opposition to her unemployment compensation was timely, that this opposition was an adverse action, and that it was sufficiently close in time to her request for restroom accommodations to allege causation.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
9/29/2023
Bird v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (M.D. Ga. Sep. 26, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former University Dual Enrollment Director, brought Title VII and IX claims for a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, as well as claims under Georgia’s Whistleblower Act. Plaintiff alleged that after she refused a hug from her supervisor in February of 2019, she was subject to a written reprimand, and her position was pretextually eliminated through a Reduction in Force (RIF) in November of 2020. The University asserted that plaintiff was reprimanded for sending a controversial programmatic email to external constituents, which upset University business partners and required presidential involvement to resolve, and that her position was eliminated due to COVID-era cost saving efforts at a period with low programmatic enrollment. In granting summary judgment to the University the court found that a single hug was insufficiently severe and/or pervasive, that the reprimand was not materially adverse as it resulted in no reduction in compensation, and that even if the latter were adverse that there was no casual between either the reprimand or the RIF, since plaintiff did not file an internal complaint until after she received notice of the RIF in July of 2020. The court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the Whistleblower claim.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
9/29/2023
Mohamed v. George Wash. Univ. (D. D.C. Sep. 22, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee at George Washington University, brought Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference and retaliation claims against the University when he was terminated after he took extended leave but failed to submit required medical certifications following receipt of conditional approval for leave to care for his father in Italy. Plaintiff did not fly to Italy for more than a month after beginning leave and failed to respond to multiple calls and emails from the University over a period of several weeks. In granting summary judgment to the University on his FMLA interference claim, the court found that the University only provided him conditional approval for leave and warned him that he would not be covered if the medical certification was not submitted. Turning to his retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate pretext because the University started the termination process the day before he finally submitted the long-requested medical certification.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation
Date:
9/29/2023
Russell v. Westchester Cmty. Coll. (S.D. N.Y. Sep. 21, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at Westchester Community College, brought disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the College and multiple officials after it declined to offer her additional classes following a series of hostile and abusive interactions, including one in which she “berated, humiliated, and cursed at” a student she suspected of plagiarism. In granting summary judgment to the College on her discrimination claim, the court found that although plaintiff had been transported to an emergency room with complaints of an irregular heartbeat, her medical records did not reveal a diagnosis of a heart condition and discovery did not produce evidence that officials regarded her as disabled. Though plaintiff had complained of discrimination in multiple emails, the court further found that she was unable to establish either causation or pretext in either her discrimination or retaliation claims, noting a lack of evidence that anything other than the College’s dissatisfaction with her hostile conduct was the reason she was not reappointed.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
9/29/2023
Thomas v. E. Carolina Univ. (E.D. N.C. Sep. 21, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former head coach of the women’s volleyball team at East Carolina University (ECU), brought discrimination and retaliation claims against ECU after she was terminated for creating a “toxic” culture within her program. Plaintiff alleged that her termination was the result of complaints she raised about Title IX compliance in ECU’s athletics programs. In permitting her discriminatory discharge claim to proceed, the court found that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that she was a high-performing, experienced female coach who was replaced by a male coach with only one year of coaching experience at the collegiate level. It permitted her retaliation claim to proceed, finding that she plausibly alleged that (1) ECU departed from its usual practice and denied her team post-season play two weeks after she complained of gender bias against the volleyball program, and (2) an athletics official had solicited complaints about plaintiff from her players and promised an assistant coach would be promoted if plaintiff was fired.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
9/22/2023
Mesbah v. Univ. of Louisville (W.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student and then postdoctoral researcher at the University of Louisville, brought harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII and Title IX against the University, alleging that a research supervisor made unwanted advances and then retaliated against her when she refused and complained to the program director. The court permitted her Title VII harassment and retaliation claims to proceed, finding that the incidents she alleged were sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment and that continuation of the advances, along with other hostile behavior, after she complained to the program director was sufficient to allege retaliation. In dismissing her Title IX deliberate indifference claim, the court noted that the University investigated her complaint and that allegations that the supervisor had harassed at least one other employee emerged only after the investigation. Her Title IX retaliation claim failed because she had not alleged she engaged in any protected activity while she was a Ph.D. student when the events underlying her claim allegedly occurred.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
9/22/2023
Prater v. Trs. of Hamline Univ. of Minn. (D. Minn. Sep. 15, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former adjunct instructor in the Art and Digital Media Department at Hamline University, brought state-law religious discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the University after it declined to renew her contract following a campus controversy surrounding art she displayed over Zoom in her World Art class containing images of the Prophet Muhammad. In permitting plaintiff to proceed on her religious discrimination claim, the court found she had sufficiently alleged that the University treated her differently than it would have treated her if she were Muslim. It dismissed her retaliation claim, finding that her statement to the dean that not showing the images would be discriminatory because it would privilege the views of those who objected over the views of those who did not was insufficient to allege a statutorily protected report of discrimination. Her defamation claim failed because assertions that her actions were “Islamophobic,” “disrespectful,” and “inappropriate” were nonactionable expressions of opinion. Her IIED claim failed because plaintiff’s alleged distress resulted not from the alleged statements of University officials but from the subsequent media coverage.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation | Tort Litigation

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.