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:
Clary v. Pennsylvania State Univ., et al. (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025)
Opinion Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student-athlete and member of the men’s basketball team at Pennsylvania State University, brought defamation claims against the university and its head basketball coach based on a series of statements allegedly made by the coach concerning plaintiff’s departure from the team. The court held that plaintiff had sufficiently stated a defamation claim against the coach based on the coach’s statements that (1) plaintiff had refused to return to the university because his father was “after more money”; and (2) plaintiff “decided himself” that he was going to leave the university. In both instances, the court found it “reasonable to infer . . . that [the coach’s] statements caused financial harm to [plaintiff] by harming his reputation and forcing him to attend a less prestigious university.” However, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims regarding other statements made by the coach, finding the allegations lacked necessary details as to the content, audience, and timing of the statements. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claims against the university, finding no basis to impose vicarious liability since plaintiff had failed to show the coach’s statements were made within the scope of his employment or with the purpose of serving the university.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Student Athlete Issues | Students | 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.