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:
Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2024)
Opinion and Order reversing the order denying the dismissal of Plaintiff A’s claims and affirming the judgment against Plaintiff B, after the Eleventh Circuit consolidated two appeals against the Board of Regents for the University System of Georgia, and the Georgia Tech Athletic Association to determine whether Title IX provides an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment. In the first case, Plaintiff A was a former art professor at Augusta University, whom multiple students complained had sexually harassed them. While an investigation was pending, Plaintiff A received a negative teaching evaluation. Then, he was suspended for one semester after the investigation found violation of the University’s sexual harassment policy. He appealed unsuccessfully, and while the appeal was pending Plaintiff A was allegedly reassigned to remedial tasks and then refused contract renewal, which led him to bring claims of retaliation and sex discrimination in employment under Title IX. In the second case, Plaintiff B was the former head women’s basketball coach for Georgia Tech, who raised complaints alleging funding disparities between the women and men’s basketball programs, including sending a letter to the institution’s president, which also alleged “differential treatment of her as a female coach.” At the same time, the university received complaints regarding Plaintiff B’s coaching techniques, including parent letters that alleged she and her staff created a “toxic” environment for the athletes. Although Plaintiff B denied that she created a “toxic” environment, an investigation corroborated the claims, and she was fired. Plaintiff B filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which she alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, sex discrimination under Title IX, and violation of the Georgia Whistleblower Act. After consolidating the appeals, the Eleventh Circuit found that Title IX does not provide a right of action for employees under Title VI, under a sex discrimination theory, and that neither plaintiff met their burden to sustain a claim for retaliation. Ultimately, the Circuit reasoned that “an implied right of action would impose unclear conditions or remedies for Spending Clause legislation, [and] we should not recognize that right.” Thus, the Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff A’s claim, considering he did not oppose an underlying violation; and affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff B’s claims under all theories, finding that she failed to tie her claims to her sex or to rebut the preferred nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Students for Justice in Palestine, at the University of Houston v. Gregg Abbott (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2024)
Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, student groups from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Houston, and the University of Texas at Dallas alleged violations of their First Amendment rights and assert claims of viewpoint discrimination and chilled speech, against their respective institutions, boards, and personnel, as well as Texas Governor Greg Abbott, based on implementation of Executive Order GA-44 “relating to addressing acts of antisemitism in institutions of higher education.” The Order required Texas public postsecondary institutions to “establish appropriate punishments” for antisemitism as that term is defined in Texas Code, which relies in part on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “Working Definition of Antisemitism” (adopted May 26, 2016). Plaintiffs claimed that inclusion of that definition of antisemitism in institutional policy would proscribe their ability to criticize Israel, and that the Order chilled their free speech and violated the First Amendment. In initially permitting the claims to proceed, the court found plaintiffs’ intended future speech would be proscribed by the policy and that under Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves (5th Cir. 2020), “in the pre-enforcement context, [] chilling a plaintiff’s speech is a constitutional harm adequate to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.” However, the court denied the request for a preliminary injunction as overly overboard, and dismissed the claims against Governor Abbott, the University of Houston and UT Austin and their respective boards as barred by sovereign immunity.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | 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.