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:
Ware v. The Univ. of Vt. & State Agric. Coll. (D. Vt. Mar. 7, 2024)
Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, four current and former students at the University of Vermont brought Title IX, due process, contract, and negligence claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging both pre-assault and post-assault deliberate indifference. The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed in their campus-wide pre-assault deliberate indifference claim, finding they had sufficiently alleged that the University improperly relied on informal procedures, was insufficiently transparent, and regularly saw delays in case resolution. Though it dismissed their pre-assault claims related to specific team and club sports, Greek life in general, and repeat offenders, it found allegations that the University did not adequately supervise or deter students from attending parties hosted by derecognized fraternities sufficient for plaintiffs to proceed on deliberate indifference, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Turning to their post-assault claims, the court found various allegations of inadequate responses to reports of sexual assault, including assertions that (1) a mandatory reporter did not report an alleged assault to the Title IX office and (2) officials coordinated to encourage a complainant to choose an informal resolution process, were sufficient for plaintiffs to proceed on their post-assault deliberate indifference, due process, and contract claims. The court also found that assertions of pressure to forego a formal investigation, criticism in the athletics community, and withheld references and professional support were sufficient to allege Title IX retaliation.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Retaliation | Student Organizations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Students for Justice in Palestine at the Univ. of Fla. v. Rodrigues (N.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2024)
Order denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida, brought First Amendment claims against the Chancellor of the University of Florida System, the System’s Board of Governors, and the President of the University after the System Chancellor sent a memorandum to university presidents linking the group to the National SJP organization, which the memo asserted provided material support to foreign terrorist organizations, and directing that Florida chapters be deactivated. Despite public statements to the contrary by the Governor, plaintiff has not been deactivated. In denying the motion for preliminary injunction, the court held plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of establishing injury-in-fact. The court noted, first, that the University Board of Trustees (BOT), rather than the System’s Board of Governors, has the power to deactivate and that the BOT had taken no such action “following advice from outside counsel suggesting that deactivation would risk opening the BOT members to personal liability.” The court further found no evidence in the record of self-censorship or other objectively chilled speech, despite assertions of anxious feelings among plaintiff’s members. In a separate Order, the court similarly denied the motion for preliminary injunction in a parallel case brought by Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of South Florida.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Organizations | 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.