Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
2/9/2024
In re: Trs. of Dartmouth Coll. (N.L.R.B. Region No. 1 Feb. 5, 2024)
Decision and Direction of Election from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 1 Director re: the Dartmouth College men’s varsity basketball team. Service Employees International Union, Local 560, which represents some College employees, petitioned the NLRB to represent “a bargaining unit comprised of the approximately fifteen students enrolled at Dartmouth who comprise the men’s varsity basketball team.” The Regional Director found that “because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the men’s varsity basketball team, and because the players perform that work in exchange for compensation, the petitioned for basketball players are employees within the meaning of the [National Labor Relations] Act,” and directed that the NLRB will conduct an election on whether they wish to be represented by the petitioner for collective bargaining purposes.
Topics:
Collective Bargaining | Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
1/26/2024
Shannon v. The Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (C.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2024)
Opinion granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a basketball player at the University of Illinois who was projected as an NBA lottery draft pick and who has significant income from a name, image, likeness (NIL) contract, brought Title IX and Due Process claims against the University after it suspended him from athletic activities following receipt of an arrest warrant related to a sexual assault he allegedly committed in Kansas. The Division of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA) suspended him pursuant to its policy permitting it to act “upon receipt of credible information that a student-athlete may have engaged in misconduct … [that], if substantiated, would constitute a Major Offense.” The court declined to order the University to apply its Title IX policy, finding that it did not have control over his Kansas trip, which was for personal social reasons, and that he had not alleged that the decision not to apply the policy was based on his gender. It granted plaintiff’s motion based on his due process claim, holding that (1) based on the terms of the University’s student conduct policy he had a property interest in not being suspended from the team without good cause, and (2) his projected draft pick status and his NIL deal made his occupational liberty interests more than speculative. It then held that he was likely to succeed on his claim that the University denied him due process when it suspended him from play under its DIA policy, which afforded fewer procedural protections than its general student conduct process.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
12/8/2023
Peyton v. Kuhn (W.D. Va. Dec. 1, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former baseball player at Radford University, brought a First Amendment retaliation claim against the University’s baseball coach after the coach did not play him in any games during the 2020-2021 season and then cut him from the team causing him to lose his scholarship and subsequently to transfer from the University. Plaintiff alleged that these actions were in retaliation for complaints he, his parents, and a group of student-athletes made about the coach’s treatment of plaintiff and other players. In denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court found that cutting plaintiff from the team was an adverse action and that the temporal proximity between the complaints and plaintiff’s removal from the team was sufficient to plead a causal relationship.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
11/17/2023
In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2023)
Order granting Class Certification. Plaintiffs, one former and two current Division I student-athletes, on behalf of themselves and putative classes, in consolidated cases, brought antitrust and unjust enrichment claims against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its Power Five Conferences, alleging that they suffered damages as a result of (1) the NCAA’s rules prohibiting compensation for student-athletes on the basis of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) from 2016 to July 1, 2021, and (2) the NCAA’s new “interim” NIL policy which subsequently became effective. In certifying three damages classes, the court held the predominant questions in each class are capable of class-wide resolution, finding sufficiently reliable expert opinions that (1) ten percent of the value of the Conferences’ broadcast rights were attributable to student-athlete NIL and that the Conferences would have negotiated agreements to offer equal payments for that NIL but for rules prohibiting that compensation; (2) the number and value of agreements to use student-athlete NIL in video games is similarly ascertainable; and (3) the value of third-party NIL compensation student-athletes did not receive from 2016 to July 1, 2021 may be estimated based on NIL compensation received after the interim NIL policy became effective.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
9/29/2023
Richardson v. Nw. Univ. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Partial Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former member of the cheerleading team at Northwestern University, brought Title IX, forced labor, forced-labor trafficking, sex trafficking, contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the University, athletics officials, and a deputy Title IX Coordinator, alleging that officials required female – but not male – cheerleaders to attend various fundraising events in their cheerleading uniforms where they knew the students would experience sexual harassment and assaults. The court permitted her forced labor and trafficking claims to proceed, finding that officials knew or should have known of the likely harassment and inappropriate touching when they planned events that (1) female cheerleaders would be required to attend in uniform, (2) the University benefitted financially, and (3) the prospect that the student might have to repay her scholarship and expenses related to cheerleading events if she left the team functioned sufficiently as a threat of harm. It also held that the allegation that plaintiff was “intentionally and repeatedly put … in situations where she would be sexually assaulted” was sufficient for her to proceed on her IIED claim. It dismissed her contract claims based on the University’s sexual misconduct policy, finding that its aspirational statements and reservation to the University of discretion in responding to allegations fell short of an unambiguous promise.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
9/15/2023
Locke v. N.C. State Univ. (E.D. N.C. Sep. 11, 2023)
Order granting the University’s Motion to Dismiss. 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 touching him inappropriately under the guise of performing a sports massage. After plaintiff reported the abuse to law enforcement in 2021, 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. The trainer was moved to more administrative duties but remained with the University. In related cases, plaintiffs John Doe and John Doe 2 also made similar claims. In dismissing plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the court held the report of suspected sexual grooming was insufficient to allege that an official with the authority to take corrective measures had actual notice of the abuse.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
8/18/2023
Daly v. Kalamazoo College (W.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2023)
Opinion denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, an incoming student at Kalamazoo College where he will be a member of the soccer team, sought a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the College from enforcing its mandatory vaccination policy, objecting on religious grounds to vaccines developed with the use of fetal cell-line tissue. In denying the TRO, the court held he was unlikely to succeed in his claims under Title II of the Civil Rights Act and Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act because the College is not a place of public accommodation as defined under either Act.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
8/4/2023
Askin v. Univ. of Notre Dame (Ky. Ct. App. July 28, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former football player at the University of Notre Dame in the 1980s and later in the NFL who suffers from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), brought personal injury claims against the University, alleging that his CTE was the result of multiple concussions he experienced as a student-athlete. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky held that plaintiff’s claims were time barred, noting that under the discovery rule his claims accrued in 2014 when he was put on notice of the harm through a discussion with a pain management nurse of pending litigation with the NFL, rather than in 2018 when he was diagnosed with CTE.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Tort Litigation
Date:
7/28/2023
Fizulich v. Killings (N.D. N.Y. July 20, 2023)
Memorandum-Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student-athlete at the State University of New York at Albany who is white, brought tort claims against the University’s basketball coach, who is African American, and discrimination and contract claims against the University in the wake of an incident in which he alleges the coach assaulted him in the locker room during an away game. Plaintiff alleges that the University disciplined and planned to terminate the coach, but later reversed the termination decision following community pressure, which plaintiff alleged resulted in his constructive termination from the team. The court permitted plaintiff’s Title VI discrimination claim to proceed, finding his factual allegations sufficient to support a plausible inference of discrimination. The court, however, held that plaintiff’s contract claim, which asserted that the University did not offer him the protective measures provided for in its Violence Policy, was barred by sovereign immunity.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
7/14/2023
Caldwell v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. of Regents, et al. (D. N.M. June 23, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff is a former student and varsity basketball player at the University of New Mexico (UNM) who was placed on interim suspension and banned from campus and from basketball team activities after he was accused of battery. Plaintiff alleged that the Dean of Students violated his due process rights when she banned him temporarily from campus and University housing. In granting the Dean’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court held although plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a property right in continued enrollment, the University’s procedures provided due process. It also held that even if he had a property right in his University-provided housing and meals, the two eviction notices and four hearings provided him with adequate notice and process. It held, however, that he had not sufficiently alleged a property right in his ability to play basketball. Finally, the court also held that the Dean was also entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged property rights were not clearly established.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Athlete Issues | Student Conduct | Students

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.