Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

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 Misconduct

  • Date:

    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

  • Date:

    The Pa. State Univ. v. Alpha Upsilon of the Fraternity of Beta Theta Pi, Inc., (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2023)

    Order affirming judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, The Pennsylvania State University, sued Alpha Upsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (Fraternity) for specific performance to exercise its right to repurchase a parcel of property after the Fraternity was suspended. In 1894, the University conveyed land to the Fraternity to construct a chapter house for use by active members. In 1928, the University repurchased the first parcel, and conveyed a second parcel for the same purpose via the “1928 Deed.” The 1928 Deed preserved the University’s right to repurchase, should the Fraternity cease to operate a house, occupied by active members. In 2017, after a member died from alcohol-related hazing activity, the Fraternity was suspended by its national organization, and the University required tenets to vacate the chapter house. The University investigated the alleged hazing and then revoked its recognition of the Fraternity for five years. Thereafter, the Fraternity refused to resell the property to the University, which sued. After the University prevailed in the trial court, the Fraternity appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the mere potential of future recolonization and occupancy of the property by an alum’s non-member child did not constitute use under the 1928 Deed, thus triggering the University’s right to purchase the Property. 

    Topics:

    Contracts | Contracts Administration | Hazing | Real Property, Facilities & Construction | Student Organizations | Students

  • Date:

    Garey v. Anderson, (E.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2023)

    Order granting summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a Washington State University (WSU) student, brought Title IX pre-assault and individual private cause of action claims for deliberate indifference and a trio of state law claims against WSU, after she was sexually assaulted in her dormitory by her former partner, Anderson. During their relationship, Anderson assailed plaintiff in his fraternity house blocking her egress from his room, grabbing her arm, throwing a trashcan at her, and pushing her into a metal door. Neither incident was reported. Plaintiff also alleged that Anderson sexually assaulted her, including twice in her dorm room. Plaintiff disclosed both sexual assaults to her counselor and to WSU’s Title IX Office. Anderson – who was previously investigated but found not responsible for another alleged assault – withdrew from WSU, and later pled guilty to domestic violence charges. In granting summary judgment to WSU, the court distinguished Ninth Circuit pre-assault Title IX precedent and found a single prior investigation, which concluded more than a year before plaintiff was assaulted that followed policy and resulted in a finding of non-responsibility against Anderson did not establish deliberate indifference by WSU as to plaintiff. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s individual private cause of action claim for want of deliberate indifference, relying on the fact that WSU officials met with plaintiff right away, were responsive in e-mail correspondence with her, made interim accommodations, increased security patrols near her dorm, and trespassed Anderson from campus all within forty-eight hours of their first meeting with plaintiff. The court applied the Eleventh Amendment to dismiss the three state-law claims. 

    Topics:

    Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Student Organizations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort Litigation

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