Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
11/7/2025
Levy v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & A&M Coll. (La. App. Nov. 7, 2025)
Opinion Vacating Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Louisiana State University School of Law, sued the university seeking reinstatement to his teaching duties and an injunction blocking the university from infringing on his free speech or due process rights, after he was placed on paid administrative leave following vulgar and inappropriate classroom statements regarding the Governor of Louisiana and President of the United States. After the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the university appealed arguing that plaintiff’s claims were premature. Finding that plaintiff’s removal from the classroom was an “interim decision” that did not “disturb [his] tenure rights, employment, or pay,” the court concluded there was “no deprivation to be enjoined.” Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.
Topics:
Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Tenure
Date:
9/8/2025
Bowei Xi v. The Trs. of Purdue Univ. (N.D. Ind. Sep. 8, 2025)
Opinion Granting Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Purdue University, brought claims of discrimination and retaliation based on sex, race, and national origin after she was denied a promotion from associate to full professor. The university reasoned that plaintiff’s research record was not sufficient for a promotion and that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of inconsistent treatment throughout the promotion application process. While plaintiff satisfied the first, third, and fourth prongs of the McDonnell Douglas test, the court agreed with the university that plaintiff was unable to satisfy the second prong of the test – i.e., that she was qualified for the promotion. Further, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was engaged in Title VII protected activity with regard to her retaliation claim, as her appeal of her application for promotion did not mention any form of discrimination. Finally, the court found that plaintiff did not show any evidence of an adverse action or causation.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Tenure
Date:
9/20/2024
Vengalattore v. Cornell Univ. (N.D. N.Y. Sep. 10, 2024)
Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track Assistant Professor at Cornell University, brought Title IX, Title VI (national origin), and defamation claims against the University based on alleged flaws in an investigation that resulted in a finding that the plaintiff had violated the University’s Policy on Romantic and Sexual Relations Between Students and Staff. In allowing plaintiff’s Title IX claims to proceed, the court categorized plaintiff’s claim as one for “erroneous outcome” finding that there were disputes of material fact regarding if the University departed from proper procedure in application of timelines within its investigatory process; if the failure to interview additional witnesses identified by plaintiff rose to the level of evidentiary infirmities in the University’s findings; and in maintenance of confidentiality between the misconduct and tenure review processes. The court allowed plaintiff’s gender bias claims to proceed given the evidence alleged an “atmosphere of public pressure” and suggested that a reasonable jury could infer anti-male gender bias from the combined alleged procedural irregularities and external pressure to correct perceived tolerance of sexual misconduct. The court dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claim finding that he himself published the alleged defamatory content when he publicly filed a petition seeking review of his denial of tenure under New York’s Article 78.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Faculty & Staff | Sex Discrimination | Students | Tenure | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/9/2024
Carr, et, al. v. Tr. of Purdue Univ.; Tr. of Indiana Univ. (S.D. Ind. Aug. 14, 2024)
Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, all tenured professors at Indiana public postsecondary institutions, sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Senate Enrolled Act 202 (SEA 202) against the Trustees of Purdue University, the Trustees of Indiana University (collectively “Boards”) and Intervenor, the State of Indiana. Plaintiffs alleged that SEA 202, which directs Boards to “adopt new policies aimed at ensuring that faculty members’ pedagogies align with the principles of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity” violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs assert that SEA 202 had a “chilling effect” on their employment because they “felt compelled to make changes to their syllabi” to abide by the policy and such efforts have been burdensome to university faculty members. Defendants argue “any injury that plaintiffs could potentially face would be attributable to the presently non-existent university polices, rather than to SEA 202 itself.” Because the court concluded Plaintiffs’ claims were “premature” requiring an “attenuated chain of inferences” and their injuries were “inchoate” due to the lack of institutional policies implementing SEA 202, it denied the request for preliminary injunction, granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed the case without prejudice noting that it “express[ed] no view as to the merits of the[] constitutional claims, which must await further factual development.”
Topics:
Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Tenure
Date:
8/2/2024
Butler v. Collins (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)
Opinion certifying a question to the Supreme Court of Texas. Plaintiff, a former law professor at Southern Methodist University sued the University and several individual administrators claiming negligent supervision, fraud, defamation, conspiracy-to-defame, as well as Texas common-law claims for breach of contract, and several statutory claims after being denied tenure in 2016. The District Court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the District Court’s judgment that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) preempts her fraud, defamation, and conspiracy-to-defame claims. In light of inconsistent precedent and unsure of whether tort claims asserted against employers can extend to harmful workplace conduct, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas: “Does the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act [], Texas Labor Code § 21.001, et seq., preempt a plaintiff-employee’s common law defamation and/or fraud claims against another employee to the extent that the claims are based on the same course of conduct as discrimination and/or retaliation claims asserted against the plaintiff’s employer?” The Fifth Circuit otherwise retained the appeal, held in abeyance pending response from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tenure | Tort Litigation
Date:
3/22/2024
Wortis v. Trs. of Tufts Coll. (Mass. Mar. 14, 2024)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiffs, eight tenured faculty at Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM), brought contract claims against the University when it reduced their salaries, full-time status, and lab space after they purportedly failed to meet the requirements of TUSM’s 2016, 2017, and 2019 compensation and lab space policies. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University, concluding that the compensation and lab space policies did not violate the academic freedom or economic security provisions of the University’s tenure documents. In reversing and remanding with respect to the compensation policies, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the meaning of the “economic security” provisions in the tenure documents is ambiguous and that “more evidence is required regarding the customs and practices and reasonable expectations related to salary and full-time status for tenured professors at TUSM, and even other universities and medical schools, to resolve the question whether the significant reductions … violated the economic security provided in the tenure documents.” It affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiffs’ claims regarding lab space, finding statements on academic freedom and economic security insufficient to support the claim that lab space was guaranteed.
Topics:
Contracts | Faculty & Staff | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Tenure
Date:
2/23/2024
Ng v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. (N.J. Super. App. Div. Feb. 16, 2024)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former tenured professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, alleged that the University did not follow the procedures in its faculty handbook when it terminated him after it gave him multiple opportunities to correct unprofessional behavior that was documented in 46 student complaints between 2009 and 2017. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Appellate Division found that the Law Division did not err in applying an administrative agency arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable standard of review, noting the deference New Jersey courts accord to the internal procedures and decisions of universities. It further found sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the University’s decision and declined to substitute its judgment for that of the University’s Board.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Tenure
Date:
1/26/2024
Yao v. Oakland Univ. (6th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024) (unpub.)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track assistant professor of nursing at Oakland University who is of Chinese national origin, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after it cited her lack of peer-reviewed publications in denying her tenure. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on her discrimination claim, the Sixth Circuit found that plaintiff was not similarly situated to her closest comparator because the comparator had one published article and one designated at the “revise and resubmit” stage, whereas plaintiff only had one co-authored article published. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on her retaliation claim, the Sixth Circuit noted that plaintiff filed the claim she asserted as protected activity a month after the University notified her that her employment would end.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | Tenure
Date:
9/1/2023
Rakhshandeh v. Tex. Tech Univ. (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track assistant professor at Texas Tech University, brought discrimination claims after he withdrew his tenure application when it became clear that it would be denied. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Fifth Circuit held his prima facie case failed because his voluntary withdrawal of his tenure application was not an adverse employment action. It declined to consider his claim that encouragement from his department chair to withdraw the application amounted to constructive discharge because it was not properly presented to the court below.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Tenure
Date:
7/21/2023
Stedrak v. Seton Hall Univ. (N.J. Super. App. Div. July 10, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former assistant professor at Seton Hall University, brought wrongful termination in violation of a clear public policy and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claims against the University and several officials after the University denied him tenure and declined to renew his contract. Plaintiff alleged that the interim president had a conflict of interest because she intended to return to the faculty and would be supervised by a member of the faculty who opposed his tenure. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division held that plaintiff’s factual allegations of a conflict of interest were insufficient to show a violation of a clear public policy. In affirming dismissal of his tortious interference claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to identify intentional or malicious interference with his tenure application and failed to allege facts that the defendants knew of or interfered with his attempt to obtain a position at another college or university.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Tenure

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.