FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Orr v. S. Dakota Bd. of Regents (D. S.D. May 11, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track instructor of health and physical education at Northern State University, brought multiple discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after he was denied tenure due to insufficient scholarship. Leading up to this decision, plaintiff took 6 weeks of paid parental leave early in 2018, returning approximately a month before he was informed of his tenure denial. Plaintiff claimed that the University unlawfully interfered with his rights under the FMLA by declining to extend 12 weeks of paid leave. The court disagreed. Although FMLA permits eligible employees to take 12 weeks of leave, the leave need not be paid. Further, plaintiff never requested an additional 6 weeks, thus extinguishing any rights he may have otherwise had under the Act. However, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on his FMLA retaliation claim based on disputed facts about whether plaintiff was denied tenure for insufficient scholarship, as the Tenure Committee represented, or whether shifting explanations about plaintiff’s collegiality coupled with animosity and controversy related to plaintiff’s parental leave “more likely motivated” the tenure decision. The court dismissed plaintiff’s Title IX claim for lack of an adequate comparator but permitted him to proceed in his First Amendment retaliation claim against the Dean.
Topics:
Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Ireland v. Rochester Inst. of Tech. (W.D. N.Y. May 11, 2023)
Decision and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Director of Donor Stewardship in the Development and Alumni Relations Division at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), brought a retaliation claim against the University after it reorganized the Division in a way that allegedly meant fewer opportunities for promotion and professional growth. Plaintiff alleged that the changes were made in retaliation for her complaints that a supervisor had made inappropriate, sexually suggestive comments. In granting summary judgment to RIT, the court held that plaintiff was unable to establish pretext because she presented no evidence that RIT’s changes to the Division were unnecessary and implemented only to harm her.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
Esparza v. The Univ. of Tex. at El Paso (Tex. App. May 8, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former Construction Supervisor at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), brought retaliation claims against UTEP after the University terminated her for performance issues, documented over a period of years through a progressive discipline process. At various points, plaintiff filed both EEOC complaints and lawsuits alleging discrimination. The Court of Appeals of Texas found that plaintiff failed to establish causation between her protected activities and her termination, noting that the only protected activity with temporal proximity to her termination was an appeal filed related to a separate dismissal and that she had presented no evidence that UTEP officials were aware of that appeal.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
Holmstrom v. Univ. of Tulsa (N.D. Okla. May 8, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Tulsa, brought Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff asserted that he “was treated as guilty” and did not have the same chance as the complainant to prepare for the hearing or have friends present character statements. The court dismissed his discrimination claim, holding that these allegations showed at most pro-victim or anti-respondent bias. The court likewise found that plaintiff’s assertion that the University felt pressure to “render a speedy decision” before new Title IX regulations took effect did not support an inference of sex discrimination. In dismissing his retaliation claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege that he had engaged in protected activity, noting that his assertion that he had to defend himself against an allegation of sexual assault is insufficient to allege that he opposed sex discrimination.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Zarza v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Mich. (6th Cir. May 5, 2023)
Opinion reversing summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former custodial supervisor at the University of Michigan, brought a retaliation claim against the University after she was terminated when a disciplinary panel determined she had created a “hostile work environment of fear, intimidation, and harassment.” Plaintiff asserted that her termination was retaliation to punish her support of disability discrimination claim asserted by a former supervisee. The Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the University, finding that temporal proximity, testimony about reactions to her support for the discrimination claim, and various comments in email correspondence discussing her discipline and termination were sufficient to raise material questions as to causation and pretext.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
McCourt v. Fashion Inst. of Tech. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 1. 2023)
Decision and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Manager of Enterprise Network Services in the IT Department at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), brought whistleblower retaliation and age discrimination claims against FIT after he was terminated for violating a written warning related to repeated uncivil and threatening behavior. Plaintiff contended that the warning and termination amounted to age discrimination or retaliation for raising concerns about unjustified costs in procurement of computer equipment and wasteful spending on IT vendors. In granting summary judgment to FIT on plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court held that two months separating his protected activity and the warning was too great to establish causation. It also found that plaintiff lacked evidence to show that he had a reasonable belief that FIT spent too much on the vendors. In granting summary judgment to FIT on his age discrimination claim, the court noted that FIT decided to present plaintiff with the option to retire only after it had decided to terminate him.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
Marshall v. State (Wash. App. May 2, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track assistant professor at the University of Washington Tacoma, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she was denied promotion and tenure. Though plaintiff’s record of research funding and publication was strong, the University pointed to low student evaluations in some of her courses to defer her reappointment and then deny her application for promotion and tenure. The Court of Appeals of Washington reversed summary judgment on her discrimination claim, holding that inconsistencies between student evaluations and positive peer observations of her teaching, studies documenting racism on campus, comments suggesting racial animus by people involved in her review, and a lack of other efforts to retain her were sufficient to raise a material question as to whether the focus on student evaluations was pretextual. The court similarly reversed on her hostile work environment claim, finding that use of “coded language that could reflect racial animus” presented a material question as to harassment affecting the terms or conditions of her employment. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on her retaliation claim, however, holding that she presented no evidence to suggest that adverse employment decisions were motivated by her reports of discrimination rather than the bias she alleged.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | TenureDate:
Myrick v. Tex. State Tech. Coll. (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee of Texas State Technical College, brought a Title IX retaliation claim against the College after she was terminated for violating the College’s Title IX policy. A male student had confided in her that a female employee had sent him an “odd” message inviting him to lunch and giving him her phone number. Plaintiff sought the guidance of a human resources official, hesitated initially to file a report, and then named the student only days later after she had been warned she was required to report his name. In permitting plaintiff’s claim to proceed, the court held that the College’s assertion that plaintiff had not engaged in Title IX protected activity is more properly addressed at the summary judgment stage.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Lan v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio (W.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2023)
Report and Recommendation granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former doctoral student and research assistant at the University of Texas at San Antonio who is Chinese, proceeding pro se, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she twice failed her comprehensive exam and was terminated from her research assistantship. As a threshold matter, the court found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged at this stage of the proceedings that she was an employee of the University. The court permitted her discrimination claim to proceed, finding that although she had not identified a comparator who retained an assistantship after twice failing a comprehensive exam, she sufficiently alleged that non-Chinese research assistants were graded more leniently. It also permitted her retaliation claim related to denial of her request for reinstatement to proceed because she alleged that two professors who knew of her grade grievance participated in the decision. Her retaliation claim related to her initial termination failed, however, because that occurred months before she filed her grievance.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | StudentsDate:
Rudman v. Oklahoma (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student and member of the Cheer Team at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO), brought deliberate indifference, retaliation, equal protection, and due process claims against UCO and its Senior Director of Student Engagement who oversaw UCO’s Spirit Teams, stemming from an off-campus, “unofficial” Cheer initiation event at which new members were allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation and harassment hazing. The court permitted her Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University and her §1983 equal protection claim against the Senior Director to proceed, finding she sufficiently alleged that the Senior Director had knowledge of similar conduct at past unofficial events and “consciously acquiesced in that conduct by refusing to respond reasonably to it.” However, it dismissed her §1983 due process claims against the Senior Director, finding that (1) the factual allegations were insufficient to allege that she deliberately created an intolerable environment on campus in order to force plaintiff to leave UCO and (2) plaintiff had not shown that a right against “constructive expulsion” was clearly established.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Equal Protection | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
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.