Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Update: U.S. Dep’t of Education Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Apr. 29, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. Among other purposes, the Department issued these regulations “to provide greater clarity regarding the definition of ‘sex-based harassment;’ the scope of sex discrimination, including recipients’ obligations not to discriminate based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity; and recipients’ obligations to provide an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex.” The Department also issued a Fact Sheet, Summary of Major Provisions, and Resource for Drafting Nondiscrimination Policies, Notices of Nondiscrimination, and Grievance Procedures. The Final Rule becomes effective August 1, 2024. Update: The U.S. Department of Education published the final regulations in the Federal Register on April 29, 2024.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    EEOC Final Rule on Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (Apr. 19, 2024)

    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Final Rule and Interpretive Guidance on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The regulations provide for the implementation by the EEOC of the PWFA’s requirements that covered entities “provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship to the operation of the business of the covered entity.” The publication contains interpretive guidance, including many examples illustrating situations under major provisions of the PWFA, that will also guide the agency in its enforcement of the PWFA. The Final Rule and interpretive guidance will become effective on June 18, 2024.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep’t of Education Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Apr. 19, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. Among other purposes, the Department issued these regulations “to provide greater clarity regarding the definition of ‘sex-based harassment;’ the scope of sex discrimination, including recipients’ obligations not to discriminate based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity; and recipients’ obligations to provide an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex.” The Department also issued a Fact Sheet, Summary of Major Provisions, and Resource for Drafting Nondiscrimination Policies, Notices of Nondiscrimination, and Grievance Procedures. The Final Rule is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on April 29, 2024, and becomes effective August 1, 2024.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (U.S. Apr. 17, 2024)

    Opinion vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit and remanding. Petitioner, a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department who is female, brought a sex discrimination claim against the City of St. Louis after a new supervisor, who sometimes called her “Mrs.” instead of “Sergeant,” transferred her from a “premier position” in the Department’s Intelligence Division to “a less ‘prestigious’ and more ‘administrative’ uniformed role” and replaced her with a male who “seemed a better fit for the Division’s ‘very dangerous’ work.” Though her rank and salary remained the same, the transfer resulted in a shift to more administrative responsibilities, the loss of a take-home car, and a rotating schedule that permitted few weekends off. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding Petitioner had not shown that the transfer resulted in a “significant” change, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that she could not show that transfer resulted in a “materially significant disadvantage.” The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari “to resolve a circuit split over whether an employee challenging a transfer under Title VII must meet a heightened threshold of harm.” In vacating the judgment of the Eight Circuit, the Supreme Court found that the text of Title VII imposes no heightened injury standard and held that a transferee need only show “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.”  

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    OCR Resolution Agreement with Hinds Comm. Coll. re: Pregnancy Discrimination (Apr. 11, 2024)

    Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Hinds Community College resolving a pregnancy discrimination investigation. OCR investigated a complaint filed by a student alleging that the College discriminated against her by not providing her with academic adjustments during her pregnancy and that the College did not respond promptly to her complaint that her instructors and program supervisor subjected her to harassment based on her pregnancy. Through the Resolution Agreement, the College agreed to (1) review and revise its practices, policies, and procedures for providing adjustments for pregnant students; (2) update its website and other areas for disseminating information; (3) train all full-time faculty and relevant staff on the Title IX rights of pregnant students; (4) conduct surveys to assess the effectiveness of trainings; (5) develop a tracking system for pregnancy-related adjustments for students; (6) compile a list of all pregnancy-related requests for adjustments; and (7) reimburse the complainant for tuition and related mandatory costs associated with repeating the final semester of her program.

    Topics:

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

  • Date:

    Update: DOJ Letter to Univ. of Md. Balt. Re: Title IX Investigation (Apr. 3, 2024)

    Letter from the Department of Justice to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County re: Title IX Investigation. The Letter details the findings of the Department’s investigation into allegations that the University responded inadequately to notice that the head coach of its Swimming and Diving Team subjected student-athletes to a hostile environment, unwanted touching, and other sexual harassment. The Letter also notes the University’s commitment through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement, which is subject to a state-mandated approval process, to enhance its Title IX Office, provide targeted training and support to student-athletes, and provide financial relief to certain student-athletes. Update: On April 3, 2024, the Department and the University entered a Settlement Agreement detailing new policy and compliance requirements and providing that the University will pay up to $4,140,000 in financial relief to impacted student-athletes.  

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination

  • Date:

    Thomas v. Weber State Univ. (D. Utah Mar. 29, 2024)

    Order and Memorandum Decision granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff earned her undergraduate degree at Weber State University, worked for a University center for two years, and then completed a master’s degree at the University. She brought Title IX deliberate indifference claims against the University, alleging that she was sexually abused on various occasions while she was a private therapy patient of a psychology professor (the Therapist) at the University who was also twice her course instructor. A University Title IX investigation found that the Therapist more likely than not engaged in behavior that was unwelcome and presented a clear conflict of interest. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court rejected two theories of liability. First, it found that neither (1) a complaint that the Therapist graded a female student unfairly, nor (2) a complaint of abuse of a male patient in another state, which was filed 15 years after the fact and which the University’s Strategic Threat Assessment and Response (STAR) team found not credible, nor (3) an incident in which the director of the counseling center advised the Therapist not to touch patients during breathing exercises was sufficient to put the University on notice of a substantial risk of abuse. Second, it found that neither (1) an adjunct professor, who never supervised the Therapist, nor (2) the director of the counseling center, who was a member of the STAR team but who lacked disciplinary authority over the Therapist, was an “appropriate person” whose individual knowledge could impute institutional Title IX liability upon the University.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination

  • 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:

    Locke v. N.C. State Univ. (E.D. N.C. Mar. 25, 2024)

    Order certifying interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff, a former soccer player at North Carolina State University, brought Title IX claims against the University, alleging that between 2015 and 2017 the team trainer, who was also the University’s director of sports medicine, abused him sexually, including by directing him to shower in front of him and by touching him inappropriately under the guise of performing a sports massage. A Title IX investigation found that in early 2016 the head soccer coach notified the senior associate athletic director that he suspected the trainer was engaged in sexual grooming of male student-athletes, at which point the trainer was moved to more administrative duties. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, holding that “an allegation of grooming behavior, without more, does not constitute actual notice of ‘an incident of sexual harassment’ as required to hold an educational institution liable under Title IX.” In certifying the question to the Fourth Circuit, the court noted that “the question of whether ‘grooming’ is sexual harassment for Title IX purposes is a question of first impression in this circuit.” 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students

  • Date:

    DOJ Letter to Univ. of Md. Balt. re: Title IX Investigation (Mar. 18, 2024)

    Letter from the Department of Justice to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County re: Title IX Investigation. The Letter details the findings of the Department’s investigation into allegations that the University responded inadequately to notice that the head coach of its Swimming and Diving Team subjected student-athletes to a hostile environment, unwanted touching, and other sexual harassment. The Letter also notes the University’s commitment through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement, which is subject to a state-mandated approval process, to enhance its Title IX Office, provide targeted training and support to student-athletes, and provide financial relief to certain student-athletes.   

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | 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