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:
Doe v. E. Stroudsburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2023)
Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at East Stroudsburg University, brought Title IX, §1983, and tort claims against the University and multiple officials related to an alleged March 30, 2018, sexual assault in her dorm by a resident assistant (RA), and their tumultuous relationship dating back to fall of 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims as time-barred under the Pennsylvania general personal injury statute of limitations. The court found that plaintiff’s claims pertaining to events occurring on or after March 30, 2018, were timely under a state tolling provision for civil actions arising from sexual abuse when the action is brought by an individual under the age of 24. The court found that it lacked adequate information to determine the applicability of sovereign immunity, absent sufficient factual allegations about the scope of the RA’s employment and “whether any actions or inactions alleged … were within the scope of those duties,” and thus, allowed plaintiff’s tort claims to proceed, with leave for defendants to re-raise the defense at a later stage of the case.
Topics:
Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
P.C. v. Stony Brook Univ. (N.Y. App. Nov. 8, 2023)
Decision & Judgment annulling the determination of the University Appeals Committee. Petitioner, a student at Stony Brook University, sought review of the University’s administrative determination after a University appeals committee affirmed a finding that he was responsible for engaging in sexual conduct with another student without her affirmative consent. In annulling the determination, the court noted that the complainant alleged that she had consented, but that she was too intoxicated at the time to be able to make that decision. It then held that the Appeals Committee’s determination that petitioner had not obtained affirmative consent before engaging in the sexual conduct was not supported by substantial evidence. The court, accordingly, vacated the penalties imposed and directed that references to the finding be expunged from petitioner’s academic record.
Topics:
Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Khan v. Yale Univ. (2nd Cir. Oct. 25, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part dismissal and remanding. In 2015, Jane Doe, a student at Yale University, accused plaintiff, also a student at Yale, of sexual assault. In 2018, after he was found not guilty in a state criminal trial, the University conducted a disciplinary hearing and expelled him for violating its Sexual Misconduct Policy. Plaintiff subsequently sued Doe and Yale for defamation and tortious interference with a contract. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claims, finding that Doe enjoyed an absolute quasi-judicial immunity for her statements to the 2018 disciplinary hearing and that plaintiff’s claims as to Doe’s 2015 statements were time-barred. After the Connecticut Supreme Court opined in response to questions certified to it that Yale’s disciplinary procedure lacked necessary procedural safeguards—such as an oath requirement, cross-examination, the ability to call witnesses, meaningful assistance of counsel, and an adequate record for appeal—to constitute a quasi-judicial proceeding to support Doe’s assertion of immunity, the Second Circuit vacated dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as to statements made during the 2018 disciplinary hearing that resulted in his expulsion. It affirmed that his claims as to Doe’s 2015 statements were time-barred.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | 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.