Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Court Grants Joint Parties’ Stipulation in Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (Mar. 31, 2026)

    The California State University System (CSU) sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024. After reviewing the joint stipulation from the parties, the court entered an order setting out how the case will be managed going forward. The order stipulates that within two business days of any determination by the Department that it intends to withhold funds or take other action against SJSU or CSU, the parties will provide the court with a proposed briefing and hearing schedule. CSU agrees to maintain existing policies and not treat the stipulation as a concession on the merits. The order protects CSU from immediate enforcement consequences, particularly the risk to federal funding, while allowing the court to later resolve CSU’s claims that the Department’s actions were unlawful, retroactive, and constitutionally impermissible.

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. v. Dep’t of Educ. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the California State University System, sued the Department of Education challenging its January 2026 determination that San Jose State University (SJSU) violated Title IX when it allowed a transgender athlete to compete on the women’s volleyball team from 2022-24. The complaint alleges that SJSU could not lawfully exclude a transgender athlete under Ninth Circuit precedent, NCAA rules, and federal guidance, and maintains that the Department’s findings improperly attempt to retroactively impose Title IX obligations based on a later policy shift. The complaint further alleges that the proposed resolution agreement violates both the Spending Clause and the First Amendment by conditioning federal funding on the university sending personal apologies to female athletes and agreeing to amend its policies. Plaintiff has asked the court to vacate the Department’s findings and enjoin it from (1) terminating, freezing, blocking, or refusing federal funding to SJSU; and (2) enforcing the proposed resolution agreement. 

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Sheets v. Greenville Univ. (S.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Opinion Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the former head softball coach at Greenville University, brought claims against the university alleging sex-discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under Title IX after she objected to the university’s failure to provide her with an assistant coach, voiced opposition to a sports complex that did not provide comparable facilities for each sex, and was terminated and replaced with a less-qualified male coach. The court allowed plaintiff’s Title VII claim to proceed, finding she had adequately pled that she had been terminated on the basis of her sex. The court also allowed plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim based on her opposition to the sports complex to proceed, finding that plaintiff’s objections were raised “on behalf of female student athletes” and were known to the university decisionmakers responsible for her termination. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim based on her objections to the assistant coaching policy. The court found that because her claim rested on objections to employment discrimination that she herself was experiencing, and not on discrimination experienced by female student athletes, her Title IX claim was preempted by her Title VII claim.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Kessinger v. West Virginia State University (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 6, 2026) 

    Opinion Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former music instructor for West Virginia University, sued the university alleging violation of procedural due process, Title IX retaliation, and state law claims after she was placed on administrative leave based on allegations of her making sexually explicit comments to students during class, rehearsal, office hours, and allegations of unprofessional behavior during a choir trip. The court found that the university was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and further held that the individual defendants within their official capacities did not violate procedural due process because plaintiff received notice of the allegations, a written investigation letter outlining her rights, and an opportunity to respond before being suspended. The court also dismissed her Title IX retaliation claims, finding that she had not engaged in protected activity under Title IX, as she was the subject, not the complainant, of the investigation. After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Initiates 18 Title IX investigations (Jan. 14, 2026)

    The Department of Education announced its Office for Civil Rights has initiated 18 Title IX investigations into educational institutions, three of which are institutions of higher education. The Department wrote that the complaints that led to the investigations are based on allegations that the institutions “maintain polices or practices that discriminate on the basis of sex by permitting students to participate in sports based on their ‘gender identity,’ not biological sex.”

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Equity in Athletics | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • 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:

    Green v. Univ. of Mississippi (N.D. Miss. Dec. 10, 2025)

    Opinion Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a Black intervention specialist at the University of Mississippi’s drug and alcohol treatment center, sued the university alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII after she was terminated based on allegations of inappropriate conduct with students, her position was subsequently eliminated, and her job responsibilities transferred to a recently hired employee. The court denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion, holding that, although plaintiff’s position was eliminated after her termination, plaintiff had established she was “replaced” because her duties were assumed by someone outside her protected class. The court further held that plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the university’s stated reason for her termination was pretextual and noted comments from plaintiff’s supervisor that she preferred a White male for plaintiff’s position. The court explained that pretext could also be inferred from the university’s investigation into plaintiff for alleged misconduct because testimony suggested that the university did not actually believe the allegations were proven and plaintiff was not informed of the allegations or given an opportunity to respond prior to her termination.

    Topics:

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

  • 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:

    Payne v. Western Michigan University (W.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2025)

    Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former custodial employee at Western Michigan University, brought Title VII pregnancy discrimination and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) claims against the university after it terminated her due to unsatisfactory job performance. The court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment holding that plaintiff had failed to make the required prima facie showing on either her Title VII or PWFA claim. On her Title VII claim, the court found that plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence showing that her firing was connected to her pregnancy. While plaintiff argued that a supervisor’s comments “criticizing her attendance and telling her to manage her pregnancy symptoms better” were evidence of such bias, the court disagreed, finding the supervisor’s statements could not be used to establish that plaintiff was treated adversely because the supervisor lacked decision-making authority over her termination. The court further noted that even if plaintiff had stated a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, the university had provided “a strong, sex-neutral justification for [plaintiff’s] firing: her unsatisfactory job performance.” The court also found that plaintiff’s PWFA claim failed because the university could not be faulted for failing to reasonably accommodate her needs when she never effectively communicated them to the university.

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Pregnancy Discrimination | Sex Discrimination

  • 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

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