FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Kaczmarek v. D’Youville Coll. (W.D. N.Y. June 26, 2023)

    Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former professor of education and part-time archivist at D’Youville College who is a member of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart and worked at the College since 1981, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College after it eliminated her positions citing declining enrollments.  Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim failed because she failed to show that the College’s asserted enrollment decreases in its Education Department programs were pretextual or that decisions she alleged the College made to bring about those decreases were made with the intent to discriminate against her.  The court, however, denied summary judgment on her claim as to her archivist position, finding a material question as to how the cited enrollment declines affected the archivist position housed in the library and a factual dispute as to whether a College official ever stated “the nun has to go.”  Her claim that the College retaliated against her when it did not investigate her complaints to the Board of Trustees about her termination failed because those complaints were subsequent to her termination and did not inhibit her from filing a claim with the State Division of Human Rights.  

    Topics:

    Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Kinnin v. Skidmore Coll. (2nd Cir. June 20, 2023)

    Order affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former Director of User Services in the IT Department at Skidmore College, alleged discrimination and retaliation after she was terminated following a series of conflicts with colleagues, in part memorialized in an investigative report that found she had “a history of subjecting certain of her employees to her wrath for unknown reasons.” The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the College, finding that she identified no evidence to show that the report or the Vice President’s decision to terminate her for poor performance and poor management were motivated by discriminatory animus.  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Oldham v. Univ. of N.C. (M.D. N.C. June 13, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is a former volunteer assistant fencing coach at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In December 2017, she was sexually assaulted on a commercial flight by a fencing coach from another university. A SafeSport investigation found him responsible, which resulted in his suspension by USA Fencing and his termination from his coaching job. In April 2019, plaintiff applied for a position as head fencing coach at UNC, but she was not hired. When she learned from the SafeSport investigative report that coaches at both UNC and the other university had made disparaging remarks about her during the investigation, she brought Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims against UNC, alleging that UNC declined to hire her either because of impermissible sex discrimination or because of protected conduct related to the underlying sexual assault investigation. The court dismissed most of plaintiff’s claims as time-barred, noting that the claims accrued when she discovered the injury, rather than when she discovered the elements of the claim. It permitted her to proceed, however, on the limited basis of retaliatory events that might have taken place within the three-year limitations period. 

    Topics:

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

  • 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:

    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:

    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:

    Li v. Ne. Univ. (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2023)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former marketing manager at Northeastern University’s Seattle Campus who was diagnosed with conditions making it difficult for her to type, sit at her desk, or speak for extended periods, brought state-law failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and retaliation claims against the University after it placed her on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and terminated her for failing to meet job expectations. After taking intermittent and then continuous FMLA leave, the University denied her ADA accommodation request for speech-to-text software, noting she still would be unable to perform essential functions, and terminated her employment. Sitting in diversity, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her failure to accommodate claim, finding that questions of fact remained as to (1) whether she could have performed her duties with the help of the software and (2) whether the University had engaged sufficiently in an interactive process. It granted summary judgment to the University, however, on her disparate treatment and retaliation claims.   

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Brown v. Bd. of Regents for the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (S.D. Ga. May 25, 2023)

    Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, here and in a parallel order, are two former police officers for Savannah State University (SSU) whose positions were eliminated in a reduction in force (RIF) initiative. They alleged that their termination was in retaliation for their actions encouraging two colleagues to file sexual harassment complaints against SSU’s former Police Chief. In denying SSU’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the court first held that plaintiffs’ opposition to the alleged harassment was protected activity and that they had adequately demonstrated that the decision makers were aware of that opposition. It then held that the timeline, testimony about the impetus for the departmental restructuring, and the fact that only plaintiffs’ positions were eliminated were sufficient to raise a question as to whether budgetary reasons were a pretextual motive for the RIF.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State Univ. (M.D. Tenn. May 19, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a professor of public management and criminal justice at Austin Peay State University, brought hostile work environment and retaliatory hostile work environment claims against the University based on a series of perceived administrative slights and a denied joint appointment to the restructured Public Management and Criminal Justice Departments.  In dismissing her hostile work environment claim, the court found that most of plaintiff’s allegations concerning employment-related actions were factually insufficient to support an inference of race-based harassment. It found only three actions that were potentially harassing in nature, including two comments that were arguably insults related to her work and one instance of scolding in front of a colleague. It held, however, that these were insufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment or to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Imungi v. Va. Commonwealth Univ. (E.D. Va. May 19, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, an associate professor in the School of Social Work (SSW) at Virginia Commonwealth University who was born and raised in Kenya, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after the SSW Dean declined to renew her one-year administrative appointment as Director of Field Education, a position that was charged with supporting the Dean’s vision for the SSW. Plaintiff’s discrimination claim failed because (1) complaints about her communications with others and clashes with the Dean over priorities confirmed that she did not meet the Dean’s legitimate performance expectations and (2) the interim Director who had never been evaluated by the Dean and who was never a permanent Director was not an adequate comparator. Her retaliation claim failed because the Dean had asked for her resignation prior to a public assembly on racism and discrimination in the SSW at which plaintiff made remarks she asserted were protected activity.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation