Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Buck-Yael v. Wash. Univ. (E.D. Mo. Mar. 28, 2024)

    Memorandum and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former IT employee at Washington University who had receive religious accommodations to practice her Orthodox Jewish Faith, brought discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims against the University after a new supervisor withdrew her accommodation to use unpaid leave rather than vacation time for religious holidays and terminated her following warnings about workplace interactions and sending unauthorized emails. In dismissing her discrimination claim, the court found plaintiff had not alleged that her termination or any discipline were connected to her failure to comply with any employment requirement conflicting with her bona fide religious belief. The court, however, found her allegation regarding the withdrawn accommodations, together with assertions that her supervisor repeatedly berated her in front of colleagues and filed allegedly false warning letters, were sufficient to permit her hostile environment harassment claim to proceed. The court similarly found her assertion that she was terminated two weeks after she cited experiencing religious discrimination and harassment in appealing the warnings sufficient to permit her retaliation claim to proceed.  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Doe v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. (W.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former graduate student in physics at Virginia Tech who is Iranian, brought Title IX, due process, and retaliation claims against the University after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff also alleged that (1) his graduate advisor received a large grant based on research plaintiff had performed in the lab and that his advisor used the funds instead to support a female student with whom he had an inappropriate relationship, and (2) after he reported the behavior, his advisor withheld certification of his master’s degree and made conditions in the lab harsh in an effort to get him to resign from the program. In permitting his due process claim to proceed, the court found that by citing specific provisions of the University’s Code of Conduct and departures from those procedures plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a deprivation of a property interest without due process. Turning to his allegations regarding the conduct of his graduate advisor, the court found plaintiff’s assertions of rude behavior in the lab insufficient to allege a hostile educational environment, but it found assertions regarding the allocation of the grant funds sufficient to him to proceed on his Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Gardner v. Kutztown Univ. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2024)

    Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured associate professor at Kutztown University who takes immunosuppressive medications to reduce the risk of permanent blindness from an incurable eye condition, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after they denied her request for a remote work accommodation for Fall 2021 in favor of a blanket policy that any change to course modality would present an undue hardship to the University.  The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her intentional discrimination, failure to accommodate, and interference claims, finding no evidence in the record that the University considered plaintiff’s individual circumstances in applying the preferred blanket policy. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding no reasonable jury could conclude that the University’s requirement that plaintiff submit additional medical documentation after she filed her suit was so severe as to dissuade an objectively reasonable employee from requesting an accommodation.   

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Zow v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C. (E.D. N.C. Mar. 26, 2024)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Chief of Staff to the Chancellor and Assistant Secretary to the Board at North Carolina Central University, brought First Amendment retaliation and other claims against the University after he was terminated in October 2021 for failure to comply with a requirement that unvaccinated employees who travel domestically self-quarantine and test negative for COVID-19 before returning to work. Plaintiff alleged that his termination was in retaliation for his participation on the University’s COVID-19 Operations Continuity Committee where he opposed the mandatory vaccination policy that was eventually adopted. In dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff’s opposition to the proposed policy, which included his belief that the policy would violate federal and state laws, was not protected activity because it occurred during the normal course of his ordinary duties; and moreover, plaintiff claimed that in response to his concerns his supervisor paused adoption of the policy to seek further legal review. The court dismissed his ADA retaliation claim as untimely and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.   

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Sloan-Brown v. Meharry Med. Coll. (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former lab coordinator at Meharry Medical College, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College after she was terminated for alleged insubordination and unsatisfactory performance. The court granted summary judgment to the College on plaintiff’s Equal Pay Act claim after rejecting portions of two affidavits, finding affiants failed to articulate any basis for personal knowledge supporting their conclusory assertion that plaintiff and a male comparator with a different job description actually performed the same work. In denying summary judgment on her retaliation claims, the court found that although it was undisputed that her 2017 complaint with the EEOC lacked temporal proximity to her December 2019 termination, there was a material question as to whether plaintiff had made other complaints to College personnel after July 2019. Plaintiff abandoned her Title VII discrimination claim.   

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Mundy v. Bd. of Regents for Univ. of Wis. Sys. (W.D. Wis. Mar. 19, 2024)

    Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former graduate student in bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, twice sued the University after it became clear she would not successfully complete the requirements for a master’s degree. At the time, department officials proposed to move her from the “research track” to the “coursework track” and make exceptions to the coursework track requirements so that she could exit the program with a degree. Preferring the research track degree, plaintiff refused and sued for disability discrimination. After that action ended in summary judgment in favor of the University in January 2022, plaintiff demanded that the University immediately award her the coursework track degree with a graduation date of August 2020. When the department concluded she had not met the requirements for that degree, plaintiff sued again, this time alleging retaliation. In denying the University’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that although it was clear she had not satisfied the requirements for the degree, a reasonably jury could find that officials changed their stance of generosity toward plaintiff due to her first lawsuit.   

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Students

  • Date:

    Zapata v. Tex. Tech. Univ. (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a Fall 2021 graduate of the Ph.D. program in Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech University who is of Columbian national origin, brought discrimination, retaliation, and constitutional claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging that (1) his advisor yelled at him for speaking Spanish and required post-defense dissertation revisions delaying his graduation by two semesters; (2) officials enforced, but later waived, a two-publication requirement; (3) the Dean refused to make his girlfriend, who had joined the faculty, his hooding professor so he could propose marriage on stage; and (4) the University denied his post-graduation request for a non-thesis master’s degree. In dismissing his Title VI discrimination claim, the court found (1) that his factual assertions about actions officials took to move him toward graduation undercut his deliberate indifference claim, and (2) no assertion that a comparator who had already matriculated out requested and received a non-thesis master’s degree. In dismissing his Title VI retaliation claim, the court noted that by October 2021 when plaintiff filed his first grievance, he had satisfied all but the two-publication requirement, which the University then waived. It further found that plaintiff’s allegation that the Dean refused to let him propose marriage on stage was insufficient to allege a retaliatory University policy or deliberate indifference to retaliation. The court also found plaintiff’s equal protection and due process claims against individual officials barred by qualified immunity.   

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Students

  • Date:

    Ware v. The Univ. of Vt. & State Agric. Coll. (D. Vt. Mar. 7, 2024)

    Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, four current and former students at the University of Vermont brought Title IX, due process, contract, and negligence claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging both pre-assault and post-assault deliberate indifference. The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed in their campus-wide pre-assault deliberate indifference claim, finding they had sufficiently alleged that the University improperly relied on informal procedures, was insufficiently transparent, and regularly saw delays in case resolution. Though it dismissed their pre-assault claims related to specific team and club sports, Greek life in general, and repeat offenders, it found allegations that the University did not adequately supervise or deter students from attending parties hosted by derecognized fraternities sufficient for plaintiffs to proceed on deliberate indifference, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Turning to their post-assault claims, the court found various allegations of inadequate responses to reports of sexual assault, including assertions that (1) a mandatory reporter did not report an alleged assault to the Title IX office and (2) officials coordinated to encourage a complainant to choose an informal resolution process, were sufficient for plaintiffs to proceed on their post-assault deliberate indifference, due process, and contract claims. The court also found that assertions of pressure to forego a formal investigation, criticism in the athletics community, and withheld references and professional support were sufficient to allege Title IX retaliation.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Retaliation | Student Organizations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Griswold v. Drexel Univ. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former associate professor at Drexel University College of Medicine who provided clinical instruction and care at the now-closed Hahnemann University Hospital (60%) and was the Director of a graduate program in medical and healthcare simulation (40%), brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after her position was eliminated following closure of the hospital. Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave and barred from campus while the Public Safety Department investigated an incident that occurred a month after she filed complaints of gender discrimination, with the result that she was unable to secure another faculty role as required for her to retain her program director position. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University on her discriminatory termination claim, the court found plaintiff’s proposed comparators with dual roles who were permitted to stay were not similarly situated because one position was a deanship and the other was funded contractually by a different hospital. The court permitted plaintiff’s retaliation claim to proceed, noting that her ban from campus, which contributed to her discharge, was in close temporal proximity to her protected activity. The court also permitted her hostile environment claim to proceed, finding the survival of her retaliation claim sufficient to raise a question about intentional discrimination. Plaintiff’s claims regarding other alleged adverse employment actions were not at issue in the instant motion.   

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Cooper v. Yale Univ. (D. Conn. Feb. 29, 2024)

    Ruling granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former administrator in the Department of Laboratory Medicine at Yale University who is African American, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after a series of negative audit findings and performance issues led successively to a demotion, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), which she failed, a phased retirement agreement, and her termination when her attorney wrote the University claiming the agreement was void. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University on her discrimination claims, the court held that plaintiff failed to raise a question as to pretext, noting that of the five comparators she suggested only one had the same title, supervisor, and similar functions, but that comparator lacked plaintiff’s extensive history of unfavorable audits and unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Turning to her retaliation claim, the court found that even though plaintiff’s PIP was implemented a month after she expressed that she felt increased oversight of her work was discriminatory, she was unable to demonstrate pretext given that the long-standing concerns about her performance predated this complaint.   

    Topics:

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

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