Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
8/30/2024
Reddy v. Univ. of Pa. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a South Asian woman and former student at the University of Pennsylvania, brought retaliation and contract claims against the University after she was suspended for violation of academic integrity when her Lab Report seemed substantially similar to that of another student. Plaintiff alleged that she previously emailed her professor raising concerns of racial bias against her, but such concerns were not addressed. After receiving notice that she was accused of violating the Code of Academic Integrity, plaintiff filed a formal bias report against the professor and met with the University’s Vice Provost. Plaintiff alleged the cheating accusation was retaliation for her pointing out the discrimination in her professor’s classroom. Plaintiff further alleged that throughout the hearing process for her academic violation, the University mishandled the hearing by failing to provide adequate time to review evidence; denying her request to present a forensic expert; and denying her appeal request. In permitting her Title VI retaliation claim to proceed, the court found plaintiff’s discussion with the Vice Provost about the alleged discrimination and differential treatment was enough to constitute protected activity. Turning to her contract claims under the Student Disciplinary System Charter (the Charter), the court found that plaintiff plausibly alleged that the University violated its duty to exchange evidence when it allowed only 48 hours for plaintiff to review new exhibits. Further, the University’s purported refusal to postpone the hearing and denial of plaintiff’s opportunity to present a forensic expert was sufficient to constitute a breach of contract of the Charter. On the other hand, the court found that the Human Resources Policy Manual exclusively applies to employees, not students, and dismissed the breach claims flowing from that document.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Students
Date:
8/30/2024
Williams v. Coppin State Univ. (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student athlete at Coppin State University, brought Title IX discrimination and retaliation, negligence, and IIED claims against the University following an episode in which an unidentified person contacted him through social media under the guise of developing a romantic relationship and he responded by sharing intimate images of himself, which the anonymous individual then threatened to redistribute. The blackmailer – who plaintiff believed to be an assistant coach on the basketball team – purportedly demanded that plaintiff engage in videotaped sex acts with the assistant coach, and after plaintiff refused to do so, the intimate images were published. Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment report and alleged that during the pendency of the investigation he was stripped of his scholarship and subjected to invasive questions. The court permitted the Title IX discrimination claim to proceed, finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged the head coach and athletic director knew the assistant coach “to be a sexual predator, and to previously have engaged in abusive behavior” and “acted with reckless and/or thoughtless disregard of the consequences to the rights of students on the basketball [] team.” The court allowed plaintiff’s IIED claims to continue based upon the same allegations and also found that he adequately pled a claim for Title IX retaliation based on the purported withdraw of his tuition and housing funding following his report and request for investigation. The negligence claims were dismissed based on state sovereign immunity.
Topics:
Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/30/2024
U.S. Dep’t of Education Final Rule on NRC and FLAS Fellowship Programs (Aug. 27, 2024)
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education Final Rule on National Resource Centers (NRC) Program and Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships Program. The new regulations provide clearer interpretations of statutory language, redesign selection criteria, and incorporate updates based on program management experience. The new regulations aim to improve the application process and align administrators of the programs with recent developments in modern foreign language and area studies education. The new regulations will go into effect on September 26, 2024 (instructions 8 and 9 eff. Aug. 15, 2025).
Topics:
Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Students
Date:
8/9/2024
U.S. Dep’t of Ed. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S. ____ (2024).
U.S. Supreme Court per curium denial of applications for stay in Department of Education v. Louisianna, No. 24A78 and Cardona v. Tennessee, No. 24A79. Multiple states filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) challenging the Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, on multiple grounds, including arguing that the Rule exceeds the four corners of the Congressionally implemented statutory text, and sought preliminary injunction. The U.S. Districts of Louisiana and Kentucky granted plaintiffs’ preliminary relief against enforcement of the Rule in the plaintiff states. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits declined to stay the respective injunctions. Subsequently, the Department made emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking partial stays of the PIs pending resolution of the appeals before the Circuits. The Supreme Court reasoned that plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief on a trio of provisions of the Rule regarding the scope of the definition of sex discrimination, which includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, rejected the Department’s request to sever those provisions and implement the remainder of the Rule, and thus, denied the emergency applications.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/9/2024
Frankel, et, al. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., et, al. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024).
Order granting-in-part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, Jewish students attending the University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) asserted multiple claims for violations of their federal and state constitutional rights including under the Free Exercise Clause after third-parties physically excluded them from portions of the UCLA campus “because they refused to denounce their faith.” The Court analyzed the factors attendant to the Free Exercise claim finding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim, as they were “exclu[ded] from campus resources while other students retained access.” It found that “given the risk that protests will return in the fall … Plaintiffs are likely to suffer an irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction.” Pursuant to the injunction, “if any part of UCLA’s ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas become unavailable to certain Jewish students, UCLA must stop providing those ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas to any students.” On August 14 Defendants filed a Preliminary Injunction Appeal.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students
Date:
8/9/2024
Missouri v. Biden (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024).
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. Plaintiffs, the States of Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma, sued the Department of Education, asserting that the Secretary’s 2023 Final Rule providing student debt relief, known as the SAVE plan, exceeded the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act. The district court granted preliminary injunction limited to the ultimate forgiveness of loans, but it found the States had not shown irreparable harm with respect to provisions altering the threshold at which repayment is required and the nonaccrual of interest. On cross-appeals to the Eighth Circuit, the States sought an expanded injunction, asserting that the Department had largely circumvented the injunction below by fashioning a “hybrid rule” from provisions of the SAVE plan that were not enjoined and provisions of the older REPAYE plan, which the SAVE plan was to replace. In granting the States’ motion, the Eight Circuit held the States were likely to succeed in their assertion that the SAVE plan is a violation of the major questions doctrine. It then ordered that “[t]he Government is, for any borrower whose loans are governed in whole or in part by the terms of the [SAVE plan], enjoined from any further forgiveness of principal or interest, from not charging borrowers accrued interest, and from further implementing SAVE’s payment-threshold provisions.”
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Students
Date:
8/9/2024
Request for Information on 2025–26 FAFSA Supporting Materials (Aug. 14, 2024).
The U.S. Department of Education issued a Request for Information (RFI) soliciting feedback on ways to improve the “help text” of the 2025-26 FAFSA form. The Department also seeks feedback on the development of supporting materials to ensure that applicants complete the FAFSA and institutions have support to process and package of student aid. Comments must be submitted no later than September 13, 2024, via the Federal Rulemaking Portal.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students
Date:
8/9/2024
The 2025–26 Student Aid Index (SAI) and Pell Grant Eligibility Guide (Aug. 13, 2024).
The U.S. Department of Education published the Student Aid Index (SAI) and Pell Grant Eligibility Guide for 2025-26 on August 13th. This Guide is designed to assist administrators with updated calculations for federal student aid eligibility and serves as a companion document to the FAFSA Specifications Guide.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students
Date:
8/2/2024
Alabama v. Cardona (11th Cir. July 31, 2024)
Order granting Plaintiff-Appellants’ Motion for Administrative Injunction. Plaintiffs, the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina and four membership associations, sued the U.S. Department of Education and sought preliminary injunction related to the Department’s 2024 Title IX Final Rule, challenging the Department’s inclusion of discrimination on the basis of gender identity within the definition of sex discrimination, expansion of the definition of sexual harassment, and changes to the procedures schools are required to follow in response to complaints of sexual harassment. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden of establishing a substantial likelihood of success on each of these claims. On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit granted plaintiff-appellants’ motion for administrative injunction and sua sponte set a briefing schedule. The administrative injunction will remain in effect pending further order of the court.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/2/2024
Oklahoma v. Cardona (W.D. Okla. July 31, 2024)
Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, the State of Oklahoma, sued the U.S. Department of Education and sought preliminary injunction with respect to the Department’s 2024 Title IX Final Rule. In granting the preliminary injunction, the court found that plaintiff was likely to succeed in its claim that the Final Rule’s expanded definition of sex discrimination to include discrimination based on gender identity exceeded the Department’s statutory authority, violated the major questions doctrine and the Spending Clause’s clear notice requirement, and was arbitrary and capricious. It also found that the Final Rule’s departure from the “clear and pervasive” standard for actionable harassment in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (U.S. 1999) is likely contrary to the First Amendment because “[w]hether conduct or speech is considered harassment under the Final Rule is dependent on broad statements and vague terminology that the Department has elected not to define.” The injunction is limited to the State of Oklahoma and applies to the Final Rule in its entirety.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

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.