Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
8/25/2023
Sagers v. Arizona State Univ. (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2023)
Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is a tenured professor and former vice president of research at Arizona State University who was hired in the administrative role to increase research funding. She brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and her former supervisor after her administrative contract was not renewed due to a downturn in funding proposals and complaints that she had a negative management style. Plaintiff alleged that she raised concerns that her supervisor created a culture of fear and intimidation among female employees and engaged in gender discrimination. Plaintiff’s discrimination claims failed because (1) vague assertions that her supervisor also had complaints about his management style that did not result in his demotion did not establish him as an adequate comparator, and (2) criticisms of the performance metrics the University used in evaluating her development of funding proposals did not show that the use of those metrics was pretextual. Finally, the court rejected her retaliation claim since it found that while her opposition to alleged gender discrimination was protected activity, she failed to identify evidence that her supervisor was aware of that activity.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
7/28/2023
Goulet v. The Univ. of Miss. (N.D. Miss. July 24, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured full professor in the Biology Department at the University of Mississippi, brought discrimination and Equal Pay Act claims against the University alleging that other faculty members were given “higher raises for less merit.” In granting summary judgment to the University, the court held that plaintiff failed to identify a proper comparator within her department, noting that (1) plaintiff has the highest salary of any member of her department other than the department chair, (2) plaintiff had received a merit raise every year in which merit raises were available in the department, (3) three comparators who received a higher percentage merit raise than plaintiff were still paid less overall, and (4) four now-retired comparators within plaintiff’s department who were paid more had more years of service than plaintiff.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
7/21/2023
Corbett v. Tex. Tech. Univ. Health Scis. Ctr. (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student in the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center’s Anesthesiology Residency Program, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the Center after she failed the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) Basic Exam four times and was dismissed from the program. Plaintiff’s discrimination claim failed because her repeated failures on the ABA Exam prevented her from showing she was qualified for the position and because she identified no comparator who had failed as many times and was treated differently. Her retaliation claim similarly failed because she presented no evidence to show that anything other than her failures on the ABA Exam were the cause of her dismissal. The court permitted her hostile work environment claim to proceed, however, holding that plaintiff’s testimony that the Program Director made comments that he did not want women in the program on “at least 10 to 15 occasions” was sufficient to present a triable question as to whether the comments affected the conditions of her employment.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment | Students
Date:
7/21/2023
Williams v. Ala. State Univ. (M.D. Ala. July 19, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Athletic Director at Alabama State University, brought Equal Pay Act and Title IX claims against the University after she left the University, and her successor was hired at a higher starting salary. Plaintiff had a master’s degree and two years of athletics administrative experience when she was hired, and her successor had a Ph.D. and ten years of experience as an Athletic Director. Plaintiff’s EPA claim failed because she was unable to show that the University’s explanation that they hoped to attract a “true executive” as her replacement was pretextual. Turning to her Title IX claim and applying Title VII’s framework, the court similarly held that plaintiff was unable to show that the higher degree and greater relevant experience were pretext for a discriminatory motive.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
7/21/2023
Kraft v. Tex. A&M Univ. (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee of the Transportation Services Department at Texas A&M University, brought a hostile work environment claim against the University and a former training supervisor after the training supervisor was terminated for surreptitiously placing a hidden camera in a women’s restroom. Plaintiff also alleged that the former training supervisor had made sexualized comments and stared at her inappropriately. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court noted that plaintiff failed to establish (1) that the training supervisor had authority over her after her training period concluded or (2) that the University knew or should have known either of the camera or the alleged inappropriate behavior.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
7/21/2023
Beny v. Univ. of Mich. (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School who is African American and has been a critic of what she perceived as inequitable practices, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and the Law School’s Dean after she was suspended from teaching and made ineligible for various benefits pursuant to a finding that she had abandoned her duties and retaliated against students. She alleged her advocacy made her a target for increased monitoring that culminated in an accusation of retaliation when she addressed anonymous complaints during a class session. She then emailed students that she could no longer teach the class and took medical leave, citing work-related psychological injury. Plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims failed because the limited factual allegations that fell within the statutory period were insufficiently related to her race, sex, or family status. The court, however, permitted her to proceed on her Title VII retaliation claim against the University and her state-law retaliation claim against the Dean, finding she had sufficiently pled adverse employment actions in close temporal proximity to her complaints of discrimination and retaliation.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
7/14/2023
Denham v. Ala. State Univ. (M.D. Ala. June 28, 2023)
Opinion & Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former professor of Occupational Therapy at Alabama State University who is a White female, brought discrimination claims against the University after she was not hired for an Associate Dean position. In granting summary judgment to the University, the court first held that plaintiff’s assertion that the successful candidate was unqualified for the position did not establish pretext, noting that although he had only one year of teaching experience the University’s faculty handbook permitted it to hire a candidate with less than five years of teaching experience at the rank of Associate Professor if that individual was deemed to have sufficient experience in a relevant field. The court further held that her assertion that the Provost’s explanation that the successful candidate “brought a lot of energy” to the interview also did not establish pretext, noting that the Provost also explained that he “spoke with ‘passion,’ particularly with respect to the role he could play as Associate Dean,” while plaintiff’s answer to why she wanted the position was “why not apply?”
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
6/23/2023
Kinnin v. Skidmore Coll. (2nd Cir. June 20, 2023)
Order affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former Director of User Services in the IT Department at Skidmore College, alleged discrimination and retaliation after she was terminated following a series of conflicts with colleagues, in part memorialized in an investigative report that found she had “a history of subjecting certain of her employees to her wrath for unknown reasons.” The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the College, finding that she identified no evidence to show that the report or the Vice President’s decision to terminate her for poor performance and poor management were motivated by discriminatory animus.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
6/16/2023
Oldham v. Univ. of N.C. (M.D. N.C. June 13, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is a former volunteer assistant fencing coach at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In December 2017, she was sexually assaulted on a commercial flight by a fencing coach from another university. A SafeSport investigation found him responsible, which resulted in his suspension by USA Fencing and his termination from his coaching job. In April 2019, plaintiff applied for a position as head fencing coach at UNC, but she was not hired. When she learned from the SafeSport investigative report that coaches at both UNC and the other university had made disparaging remarks about her during the investigation, she brought Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims against UNC, alleging that UNC declined to hire her either because of impermissible sex discrimination or because of protected conduct related to the underlying sexual assault investigation. The court dismissed most of plaintiff’s claims as time-barred, noting that the claims accrued when she discovered the injury, rather than when she discovered the elements of the claim. It permitted her to proceed, however, on the limited basis of retaliatory events that might have taken place within the three-year limitations period.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
6/9/2023
Foley v. Drexel Univ. (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2023)
Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of philosophy at Drexel University, brought hostile work environment and retaliation claims against the University and the chair of the Department of English and Philosophy alleging “a plethora of acts that she contends show discrimination based on sex and retaliation for the majority of her time at Drexel, between 2009 and 2022.” The court deemed some of plaintiff’s claims time-barred, to the extent that they were discrete and actionable events that occurred outside of the limitations period. It permitted plaintiff to proceed under the theory of continuing violation, however, as to allegations that “do not appear to be actionable, discrete discriminatory acts,” such as “sabotage” of dinners with visiting scholars, a requirement that she seek permission from a male adjunct professor to teach a course, and disagreements about administrative matters.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

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.