Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Doe v. Syracuse Univ. (N.D. N.Y. June 21, 2023)

    Decision & Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Syracuse University, brought erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, and contract claims against the University after he was expelled for a sexual assault alleged to have happened in March 2021. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed on his erroneous outcome claim, finding that (1) his allegations about flaws in evidentiary decisions and credibility determinations in both the investigative report and decision letter were sufficient to cast an articulable doubt on the outcome of the proceeding and (2) his allegations about the University’s enforcement of its policies supported a “minimal plausible inference of discriminatory intent.” In particular, he alleged that the University was attempting to “create an image that it was ‘tough’ on sexual violence” and that it continued to follow its policies shaped in response to the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter despite having adopted new policies in fall 2020. His selective enforcement claim failed, however, because he did not allege that the University refused to investigate female students accused of similar conduct. His contract claims also failed because the generalized statements he cited did not amount to contractual promises, and the facts alleged showed he was not denied process.  

    Topics:

    Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Doe v. The Citadel (4th Cir. June 12, 2023)

    Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former student at The Citadel, brought Title IX and due process claims against the College and multiple administrators after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s due process claims against the individual defendants, the Fourth Circuit declined to hold that the disciplinary board violated his due process rights when it stopped his representative from cross-examining the complainant about her memory, noting that he was afforded notice, a hearing, and an opportunity for appeal. Turning to his Title IX claim, the court held that he failed to connect either the generalization that most complainants are female or the 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter” requiring compliance with Title IX to any facts suggesting sex discrimination in his case.  

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Grabowski v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (9th Cir. Jun 13, 2023)

    Opinion affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding dismissal. Plaintiff, a former member of the track team at the University of Arizona, brought Title IX deliberate indifference and retaliation claims against the University and §1983 claims against two coaches, alleging that he experienced homophobic bullying from other team members and that when he reported it, the University cancelled his scholarship and removed him from the team. The Ninth Circuit relied on Bostock to hold that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation. It then affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s Title IX claim, finding the pleadings insufficient to support a claim that the bullying denied him access to educational opportunities, when instead, the pleadings specified that his grades and relationships with students outside the running program remained exemplary. It reversed dismissal of his retaliation claim, finding that the timeline of events, coupled with additional allegations that his coaches directed antagonistic comments and actions towards him, was sufficient to allege causation. It affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s §1983 claim against the coaches, holding that caselaw does not clearly establish a property right in an athletic scholarship.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    AlSayyad v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. June 7, 2023)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, brought discrimination claims against the University after he was suspended for three years for sexually harassing a graduate student. The faculty Privilege and Tenure Committee recommended a one-year suspension and sensitivity training, finding a “momentary overstep” when he touched the student’s leg. The Chancellor, however, imposed a three-year suspension, finding instead a pattern of harassment and unprofessional behavior. Affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the California Court of Appeals held that the Chancellor presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the more severe sanction and that plaintiff presented no evidence showing that this reason was pretextual. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Pogorzelska v. VanderCook Coll. of Music (N.D. Ill. June 5, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student at VanderCook College of Music, brought Title IX claims against the College, alleging that it exhibited deliberate indifference to her reports of off-campus sexual assault and subsequent on-campus harassment and that it retaliated against her for making the reports. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her deliberate indifference claim as to the assault, finding that a jury could conclude from email correspondence and disputed statements in the record that College investigators believed the respondent had committed the assault but unreasonably imposed limited sanctions in hopes of promoting a “healing process.” It also permitted her to proceed on her deliberate indifference claim as to the subsequent harassment, finding triable issues of fact as to (1) whether two incidents constituted harassment and (2) whether the College’s decision not to adjust or further enforce its no-contact order was clearly unreasonable. It granted summary judgment to the College, however, on plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding insufficient evidence of materially adverse actions that were caused by plaintiff’s reports. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sexual Misconduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

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