FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Santiago v. Univ. of Miami (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2023)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Clinical Program Coordinator in the Department of Anesthesia at the University of Miami, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University, alleging that over a period of multiple years, she complained almost weekly to the University’s HR office about discriminatory treatment by her supervisor until she finally resigned. In adopting the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the court permitted plaintiff’s discrimination claim to proceed, finding that (1) she asserted sufficient unfair work assignments and arbitrary discipline to allege constructive discharge and (2) she alleged appropriate comparators by identifying two colleagues who reported to the same supervisor, even though they held different roles than plaintiff. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed, however, because her asserted constructive discharge was too remote to establish causation from when she began reporting her supervisor’s alleged discriminatory treatment to HR. 

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Felkner v. R.I. Coll., et al. (R.I. Apr. 20, 2023)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of Rhode Island College. Plaintiff, a former student in the Master of Social Work Program at Rhode Island College who describes himself as a “conservative libertarian,” brought First Amendment claims against the College and multiple officials, alleging that his instructors rejected several advocacy project proposals aligned with his political perspective and then retaliated against him by assigning poor grades and by granting him only one conditional extension on the due date for his final project. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that plaintiff’s claim was barred by qualified immunity, noting that in the context of the “great deference” afforded to “academic decisions concerning grades, coursework, and progress within an academic program” it would be unreasonable to expect that faculty would have “had fair warning that their conduct potentially violated his constitutional rights.”  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Students