Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Reges v. Cauce (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025)

    Plaintiff, a professor at the University of Washington, sued the university for First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, and brought a facial challenge against the university’s nondiscrimination policy as overbroad and vague after the university investigated and reprimanded him following plaintiff’s statement on his syllabus mocking the university’s recommended land acknowledgement statement. The district court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims, finding the university had a legitimate interest in preventing disruption caused by plaintiff’s statement; and dismissed plaintiff’s challenge to the nondiscrimination policy, construing the policy to be limited in its reach and therefore neither overbroad nor vague. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, directing that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiff on his First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims. The court found that (1) the university had taken adverse action against the plaintiff based on the views he expressed in his syllabus statement including subjecting him to a lengthy investigation, reprimanding him, and warning of possible future discipline; (2) plaintiff’s speech was protected because he “spoke in his own capacity as a professor, not on behalf of his employer” and he “unquestionably spoke on a matter of public concern”; and (3) the university failed to meet its burden under the Pickering test of demonstrating that its legitimate interests in mitigating the disruption outweighed plaintiff’s interest in speaking on a matter of public concern. Finally, on plaintiff’s facial challenge to the nondiscrimination policy, the court held that because the district court’s “limiting construction” of the policy conflicted with the policy’s plain text, the district court erred in dismissing the claim and remanded for further consideration.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Jackson v. Duff (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2025)

    Opinion Affirming Denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the vice president of Jackson State University, sued members of the Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning in their individual capacities, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause under § 1983 and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after the board failed to hire her for an interim president role, and subsequently denied her an interview and failed to hire her for the presidency. The district court denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding (1) that each board member, by way of voting to appoint a male candidate and denying plaintiff an interview, could be construed as the proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged constitutional injury, and (2) because the plaintiff had adequately pled a violation of clearly established law,” a qualified immunity defense was foreclosed at this stage of the proceeding.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Governance | Governing Boards & Administrators | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Brassette v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund (E.D. La. Dec. 1, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Paint Supervisor at Tulane University, brought Title VII reverse race discrimination and retaliation claims and claims under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) after he was terminated following an internal investigation which concluded he had discriminated against Black employees by “harassing, screaming at, excessively monitoring, and unreasonably disciplining them.” In granting summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s race and age discrimination claims, the court held plaintiff could not demonstrate that his firing was pretextual, finding instead that the university “reasonably believed” that he discriminated against Black painters working for him, and was terminated on that basis alone. Regarding plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court found that although he had engaged in protected activity when he complained that his write-ups were not taken seriously because of his race, he failed to make a causal connection between this activity and his termination four months later.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Grossenbach v. Arizona Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2025)

    Recommendation from Magistrate Judge to District Court Judge to Deny in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at the University of Arizona, sued the  university for violations of Title VII, the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and an Arizona public records law, after it declined to renew his teaching contract, which he alleged was due to complaints the university received about his advocacy on behalf of SaveCFSD, an organization he founded to combat “radical gender ideology” in his local school district. The magistrate judge rejected the university’s argument that plaintiff had failed to “timely exhaust his administrative remedies,” finding instead that the filing window was tolled until he received documents in response to his public records request. The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff had successfully pled facts that would allow one to conclude the university took actions to prevent the plaintiff from discovering his claims by “slow-walking his public records request” and falsely telling him that his contract would not be renewed because the university was going to hire a full-time faculty member to teach [his] classes.” The magistrate judge further found that the Eleventh Amendment was not a barrier to plaintiff’s constitutional claims since he was seeking prospective relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and reinstatement to his position. Finally, the magistrate judge agreed with the university that plaintiff’s Arizona public records law claim should be dismissed because plaintiff had failed to comply with “notice of claim” requirements, while noting the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to withdraw his claim.

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    West v. Bd. of Trs. of Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. (N.D. Ala. Nov. 21, 2025)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former bus driver for Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, brought Title VII sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims against the university after she was terminated following complaints she made that her supervisor treated her more harshly than her male counterparts when she refused to work the late shift. The court denied summary judgment on her retaliatory discharge claim finding genuine issues of material fact remained, including (1) whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity; (2) whether the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment pre-dated any protected activity; and (3) whether the stated reason for her termination was pretextual. However, the court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim because plaintiff abandoned the claim.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Span v. Pinal Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a current professor and former Division Chair at Pinal County Community College District, filed a racial discrimination suit under Title VII alleging disparate treatment and retaliation claiming senior administrators had engaged in an “unwarranted” and “secret investigation” into his handling of a complaint regarding another faculty member and had taken other actions designed to “undermine” his ability to carry out his job duties. The court granted the college’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or retaliation under Title VII. The court determined that despite a plethora of grievances, plaintiff failed to allege any adverse employment action when he remained in his position as Division Chair until the end of his term, and there were no changes to his compensation or the privileges or conditions of his employment. The court also found plaintiff’s claim for retaliation insufficient to survive summary judgment because, once again, he failed to show any adverse employment action and his voluntary withdrawal of his application for a promotion did not amount to being denied a promotion.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    McGowan v. Univ. of Mich. (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former cook at the University of Michigan dining hall, sued the university claiming discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and breach of contract and wrongful termination under state law, after she was terminated following her failure to submit forms required to request unpaid medical leave prior to the submission deadline. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims, holding that the university was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because the dining hall was “a department of the university and not a separate third-party entity” and therefore, was entitled to the same immunity as the university itself.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    O’Neill v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa. (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former teaching assistant at the University of Pennsylvania, sued the university alleging hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII, after (1) she reported improper conduct from a male student in her lab; (2) the university responded with a safety plan; and (3) plaintiff abandoned her job after the university declined to make her requested changes to the safety plan. The court granted summary judgment for the university, finding that while it agreed with the plaintiff as to the nature and pervasiveness of the male student’s improper conduct, she had not provided evidence to allow a jury to find the university liable for creating a sex-based hostile work environment based on conduct of its non-employee male student.  The court also granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim, finding that the university acted promptly, by enforcing a safety plan the same day plaintiff complained of the student’s behavior, and thus “a reasonable jury could not find that university ‘knowingly permitted’ [the student] to harass [plaintiff].”

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Goldman v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. Oct. 29, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at the University of Arizona, brought more than a dozen claims against the university, the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA), and several individuals alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and other civil rights, constitutional and state claims, based on the defendants alleged failure to provide accommodations for his disability. The court dismissed the majority of the plaintiff’s claims, finding a variety of procedural deficiencies with the complaint including that claims were either made against an entity or person that is not deemed a judicial entity or public entity, or plaintiff failed to follow state law requirements for bringing claims against state officials. However, the court held that plaintiff had satisfied the minimal pleading requirements necessary for four claims against the university: (1) violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (2) violation of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), (3) unlawful retaliation, and (4) hostile educational environment, finding sufficient allegations of failure to accommodate plaintiff’s disability including “excessive scrutiny during exams, skepticism from professors regarding accommodations, disruption of testing environments, dismissive responses to questions, and differential treatment and isolation from peers.” Finally, the court required plaintiff to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, citing plaintiff’s briefings to the court, which included a “hallucinatory case” that did not exist, along with several quotes from cases that did not match and “unusual language formulations” indicating likely use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist. v. Chavez (Tex. App. Oct. 9, 2025)

    Memorandum Opinion Affirming the Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff-Appellee, a former employee at Tarrant County Community College District, sued the college for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after he filed a complaint alleging misandrist comments from female co-workers and was subsequently terminated for violating a college policy prohibiting the recording of conversations of other employees without their consent. The college brought a motion to dismiss, but  the trial court denied the motion finding plaintiff-appellee had raised a genuine issue of material fact over whether the college had violated the TCHRA. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that because plaintiff-appellee provided some evidence that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated female employee, who was allowed to remain in her position despite violating the same college policy, he met his “minimal initial burden” to state a prima facie case of discrimination. The court further held that allowing the female employee to remain in her position, even after committing the “stated-terminable offense” raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the college’s stated reason for terminating plaintiff-appellee was pretextual.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

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