Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Shannon v. The Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (C.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2024)

    Opinion granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a basketball player at the University of Illinois who was projected as an NBA lottery draft pick and who has significant income from a name, image, likeness (NIL) contract, brought Title IX and Due Process claims against the University after it suspended him from athletic activities following receipt of an arrest warrant related to a sexual assault he allegedly committed in Kansas. The Division of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA) suspended him pursuant to its policy permitting it to act “upon receipt of credible information that a student-athlete may have engaged in misconduct … [that], if substantiated, would constitute a Major Offense.” The court declined to order the University to apply its Title IX policy, finding that it did not have control over his Kansas trip, which was for personal social reasons, and that he had not alleged that the decision not to apply the policy was based on his gender. It granted plaintiff’s motion based on his due process claim, holding that (1) based on the terms of the University’s student conduct policy he had a property interest in not being suspended from the team without good cause, and (2) his projected draft pick status and his NIL deal made his occupational liberty interests more than speculative. It then held that he was likely to succeed on his claim that the University denied him due process when it suspended him from play under its DIA policy, which afforded fewer procedural protections than its general student conduct process. 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Coccaro v. Barnard Coll. (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024)

    Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff, a student at Barnard College during the Spring 2020 semester, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the College after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. In denying the College’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s contract claims, the court ruled that various descriptions on the College’s website were sufficient to allege an implied contract for on-campus instruction and services. The court also found that the College’s disclaimer in its course catalogue did not defeat plaintiff’s implied contract claim and that the College’s assertion of an impossibility defense and contention that plaintiff waived her claim and ratified the change when she retained the benefit of the bargain were better resolved at a later stage of litigation. Likewise, the court also permitted plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim to proceed.   

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus

  • Date:

    Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 9, 2024)

    Final Order approving Class Action Settlement. Plaintiffs, three students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) during Spring 2020, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against RPI, after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The court granted final approval of the parties’ multi-class Settlement Agreement, which provided for a total settlement amount of $6,500,000.   

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep.’t of Education Request for Information on Sexual Violence at Educational Institutions (Jan. 24, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Education Request for Information (RFI) on Sexual Violence at Educational Institutions. Pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2022, the Department requests information to assist the Task Force on Sexual Violence in Education in its work to make recommendations to educational institutions on best practices for preventing and responding to sexual violence on campuses. The RFI lists seven questions of interest, including factors and best practices for institutions to consider in establishing sexual assault prevention and response teams and considerations for responding to sexual and dating violence. Comments are due by March 11, 2024.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Anders v. Cal. State Univ. (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024) (unpub.)

    Opinion vacating denial of class certification and remanding. Plaintiffs, members of the women’s lacrosse team at Fresno State University, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought Title IX gender equity claims against the University after it discontinued its women’s lacrosse, men’s wrestling, and men’s tennis teams. The district court denied class certification, citing a conflict between the interests of the named plaintiffs and the interests of other female students participating in other sports whose interests might not be served by diverting resources to the restoration of the lacrosse team. In vacating and remanding, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion because plaintiffs’ effective accommodation claim did not necessarily require reinstatement of the lacrosse team. It also held that the district court abused its discretion in not independently considering plaintiffs’ equal treatment claim.   

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics

  • Date:

    Simons v. Yale Univ. (D. Conn. Jan. 17, 2024)

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of medicine at Yale University, brought gender discrimination and contract claims against the University and multiple officials after he was removed from his positions as section chief and center director in 2014 for sexual harassment and from his endowed professorship in 2018, allegedly in the wake of negative publicity related to the earlier harassment allegations. In denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim, the court found, first, that plaintiff raised genuine issues as to whether removal from a named chair without a reduction in salary was an adverse action; and whether allegedly removing him from the chair without additional process so long after its first sanction, allegedly to avoid renewed negative publicity, demonstrated discriminatory animus. The court also found that the latter questions were sufficient to raise a question of pretext about the University’s asserted concern to respond adequately to negative sentiment within its medical school community. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on his contract claim, finding that although his position as professor was tenured, his endowed chair and positions as chief and director were at-will.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    O’Keefe v. Lehigh Univ. (3rd Cir. Jan. 12, 2024)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former student at Lehigh University, brought assault and battery claims against two University police officers and contract claims against the University after he was arrested, breathalyzed, and expelled for public drunkenness. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the officers, the Third Circuit held that the breath test was reasonable, noting that witnesses observed plaintiff “stumbling around and falling after almost being hit by a car,” and that the level of force used to administer the test was not unreasonable given “an admittedly uncooperative subject.” In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on his contract claim, the court held that (1) pointed questioning of a witness by an associate dean of students about whether plaintiff appeared drunk did not raise a question of fundamental unfairness; (2) lack of a separate credibility determination in the hearing panel’s evaluation of information presented by eyewitnesses did not raise an issue of fundamental fairness, particularly as University policy does not require a record of a specific credibility determination; and (3) the University did not impermissibly withhold exculpatory evidence when it did not produce for the hearing panel the initial incident report when its contents were presented in a summary provided to the panel nor when it did not produce body camera footage that was not in its possession.    

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Student Conduct | Students

  • Date:

    Haltigan v. Drake (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024)

    Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff holds a Ph.D. in psychology and is seeking employment in postsecondary psychology departments across the country. He brought First Amendment unconstitutional conditions and viewpoint discrimination claims against the University of California, Santa Cruz, challenging its Advancing Faculty Diversity program and the requirement that candidates submit a diversity statement for consideration for open faculty positions. He alleged that he did not apply for an open position because it would require him “to alter his behavior and remain silent … or recant his views to conform to the dictates of the University administration.” In granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the court held that plaintiff’s bare statement that he “desires a position at the University” was insufficient to allege that he was “able and ready” to apply in order to establish competitor standing. The court further found that plaintiff had alleged insufficient facts to show that his application would be futile.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    De Piero v. Pa. State Univ. (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former writing instructor at Penn State University’s Abington campus, brought discrimination and First Amendment retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after he complained publicly about required antiracism and educational equity trainings, and then resigned when he was issued a performance expectations notice for disrupting another training. In dismissing plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim, the court held that reduced performance evaluations and the performance expectations notice were insufficient to support his claim of constructive discharge. Though the court noted that “[t]raining on concepts such as ‘white privilege,’ ‘white fragility,’ implicit bias, or critical race theory can contribute positively to nuanced, important considerations about how to form a healthy and inclusive working environment,” it permitted his hostile work environment claim to proceed, finding that his detailed assertions regarding multiple trainings he was allegedly required to attend in which race was discussed “with a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language” were sufficient to allege pervasive harassment. In dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff’s challenges to the facilitators of the workshop for which he was issued a performance expectations notice were unprotected personal complaints rather than protected speech on matters of public concern.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Omori v. Brandeis Univ. (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2024)

    Memorandum & Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, two students at Brandeis University during Spring 2020, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University related to tuition and fees after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. Massachusetts, however, enacted a statute granting institutions of higher learning retroactive immunity from damages claims arising from the spring academic term of 2020 where the institution offered online or remote learning options to allow students to complete coursework. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court held that the retroactive provisions were narrowly tailored to the difficulties of the initial phases of the pandemic and promoted several rational bases, including encouraging institutions to respond appropriately to future health crises.

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus

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.

Register