FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
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 MisconductDate:
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 | StudentsDate:
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 | StudentsDate:
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 | StudentsDate:
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
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.