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:
ACE Letter to ED re: FAFSA Implementation Concerns (Mar. 28, 2024)
Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 15 other higher education associations to the U.S. Department of Education on the FAFSA implementation process. The letter requests that ED “fully communicate all information regarding the FAFSA process to institutions in a timely manner and provide the necessary support to ensure they can make the process as smooth as possible for both current and incoming students.” The letter also shares the results of a survey conducted by ACE, EDUCAUSE, and the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) assessing institutions’ needs and concerns in the process.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
Zapata v. Tex. Tech. Univ. (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a Fall 2021 graduate of the Ph.D. program in Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech University who is of Columbian national origin, brought discrimination, retaliation, and constitutional claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging that (1) his advisor yelled at him for speaking Spanish and required post-defense dissertation revisions delaying his graduation by two semesters; (2) officials enforced, but later waived, a two-publication requirement; (3) the Dean refused to make his girlfriend, who had joined the faculty, his hooding professor so he could propose marriage on stage; and (4) the University denied his post-graduation request for a non-thesis master’s degree. In dismissing his Title VI discrimination claim, the court found (1) that his factual assertions about actions officials took to move him toward graduation undercut his deliberate indifference claim, and (2) no assertion that a comparator who had already matriculated out requested and received a non-thesis master’s degree. In dismissing his Title VI retaliation claim, the court noted that by October 2021 when plaintiff filed his first grievance, he had satisfied all but the two-publication requirement, which the University then waived. It further found that plaintiff’s allegation that the Dean refused to let him propose marriage on stage was insufficient to allege a retaliatory University policy or deliberate indifference to retaliation. The court also found plaintiff’s equal protection and due process claims against individual officials barred by qualified immunity.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | StudentsDate:
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:
Doe v. Rochester Inst. of Tech. (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 11, 2024)
Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a student at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), brought Title IX and contract claims against RIT after he was suspended for nonconsensual sexual conduct. After an initial hearing found him responsible for the misconduct, plaintiff presented new evidence concerning the complainant’s credibility. A second hearing and subsequent appeal also found him responsible. In denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s contract claims, the court found sufficient evidence that the second hearing panel and appeals board (1) declined to consider evidence concerning the complainant’s credibility and (2) required plaintiff to prove that he had received affirmative consent, rather than the institution to prove he had not. It also found evidence raising questions concerning the second hearing panel’s impartiality, including related to guidance to the panel from the Title IX Coordinator, improper consideration of testimony from the first hearing, and a joke about plaintiff made among RIT officials during a break in the hearing that was nevertheless recorded in the hearing transcript. The court granted summary judgment in favor of RIT on plaintiff’s Title IX erroneous outcome and undue severity claims, however, finding he presented insufficient evidence that the procedural irregularities were based on sex bias.
Topics:
Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Bagnall v. Cal. State Univ. (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2024)
Order granting-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, the father and estate of a deceased student at California State University who had been the respondent in a Title IX sexual misconduct investigation, brought Title IX and multiple tort claims against the University and its Title IX Coordinator after the decedent died by suicide a few days after his attorney submitted his response to the Title IX investigative report. In dismissing the Title IX claim without prejudice, the court held that (1) a conclusory assertion that the Title IX Coordinator embraced “radical feminism” was insufficient to allege background indicia of gender bias in the University’s Title IX investigations and (2) an allegation that the Title IX Coordinator “disregarded ‘the wealth of exculpatory evidence provided to [her]’” without identifying specific evidence that was disregarded was insufficient to identify procedural flaws, particularly as the investigation was still incomplete at the time of the decedent’s death. The court dismissed the tort claims without prejudice, noting that the complaint did not allege that the plaintiffs had first presented their claims to the University in compliance with the California Government Claims Act.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Distressed & Suicidal Students | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Doe v. The Univ. of N.C. Sys. (W.D. N.C. Mar. 4, 2024)
Memorandum of Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and recipient of an independently funded full scholarship, brought Title IX, due process, contract, and tort claims against the University and numerous officials after he was expelled for alleged sexual misconduct. Plaintiff alleged that he did not receive proper notification of the accusations, that he was not allowed to cross-examine his four accusers, that evidence was withheld from him and exculpatory evidence was not considered, and that investigators and members of hearing panels showed gender bias. The court found the factual allegations sufficient for plaintiff to proceed on his Title IX erroneous outcome, due process, and contract claims. The court also found the alleged procedural flaws sufficient to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, but it found no allegation that the flaws were intended to inflict emotional distress. The court also permitted plaintiff to proceed on his tortious interference with a contract claim, finding that he had sufficiently alleged that the University had communicated information about the flawed disciplinary proceedings to the foundation funding his scholarship.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort LitigationDate:
Doe v. Brandeis Univ. (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2024)
Memorandum & Order granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Brandeis University, brought gender and disability discrimination, contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against the University, its Title IX Coordinator, and the investigator assigned to his case, after he was investigated for alleged dating violence. The court granted the University’s partial motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligence claims, noting that his claims sound in contract rather than tort. The court also denied plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add negligent supervision and defamation claims, finding that (1) he offered no specific facts to support his assertion of negligent training or supervision, and (2) statements in the investigative report to which he objected were the investigator’s opinion and cannot support a defamation claim.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | 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.