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:
Frank Bartel Transp, v. State, ex rel. Murray State Coll. (Okla. Dec. 19, 2023) (unpub.)
Opinion reversing partial summary judgment in favor of the State. In March 2019, an employee of Murray State College drove a College vehicle head-on into a semi-trailer truck owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted that in addition to damage to the truck it also suffered consequential damages of $68,636.61 for towing, vehicle rental, and related expenses. The State offered to settle for $25,000, which is the statutory cap for property loss under the Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff argued for a higher cap of $125,000 provided in the statute for “any other loss” arising out of a single act, accident, or occurrence. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the state on the question of the statutory cap. In reversing, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that because plaintiff’s consequential damages arose indirectly from the loss of the truck the higher statutory cap applied.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort LitigationDate:
Doe v. Princeton Univ. (D. N.J. Dec. 19, 2023)
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Princeton University, brought Title IX and contract claims against the University after he was found responsible for sexual misconduct in 2020, placed on probation for four months, and had a permanent notation placed on his transcript. He alleged that the University’s process was biased, particularly in its choice to believe his accuser’s account over the weight of his evidence, including “a large number of big, darkly colored hickeys on both sides of his neck,” suggesting that she was actually the aggressor. In dismissing his Title IX claim, the court found plaintiff’s assertion that the University harbored archaic assumptions misplaced, noting that on appeal it had found in his favor on several issues and reduced his sanction. In permitting his contract claim to proceed, the court found that plaintiff’s assertion of inconsistent credibility determinations and a decision not to interview a witness whose statement might have undermined his accuser’s credibility were sufficient to allege that the University did not provide an impartial investigation with unbiased and adequately retained investigative and hearing panels as required by the University’s policies.
Topics:
Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Ohio, et al. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletics Ass’n (D. W. Va. Dec. 18, 2023)
Order granting Joint Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff States of Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia alleged that the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) enforcement of NCAA Bylaws 14.5.5.1 and 12.11.4.2, which govern transfer eligibility and restitution respectively, violate Federal anti-trust law, specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Under the transfer eligibility rule, student athletes who transfer two or more times are ineligible to compete for one year after transfer. Plaintiffs claim that this prohibition “unjustifiability restrains the ability of [] college athletes to engage in the market for their labor as NCAA Division I college athletes.” After the Court entered a 14-day TRO prohibiting enforcement of the transfer eligibility rule, the parties jointly sought to convert the TRO to a Preliminary Injunction in lieu of a PI hearing, and to set the case for trial. The Court granted the joint motion and entered a PI that will remain in place until a final trial and decision on the merits. Pursuant to the PI student athletes who were ineligible to compete under the NCAA’s transfer eligibility rule may engage in competition.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA RulesDate:
Cetin v. Kan. City Cmty. Coll. (D. Kan. Dec. 18, 2023)
Memorandum and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, an English as a second language instructor at Kansas City Community College who suffers from multiple conditions that leave her immunocompromised and at increased risk of respiratory infections, brought a failure to accommodate claim against the College after it denied her request to work from home, despite her assertion that she received excellent evaluations and achieved the same student outcomes teaching remotely as prior to the pandemic. The College required plaintiff to be present on campus during Fall 2021 and to attend in-person events, though it permitted her to teach her classes by video conference while isolated in her office. In permitting plaintiff’s claim to proceed, the court found that plaintiff had plausibly pled she had requested a reasonable accommodation.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & DiversityDate:
Vlaming v. W. Point Sch. Bd. (Va. Dec. 14, 2023)
Opinion reversing dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiff, a former French teacher at West Point High School, brought First Amendment, statutory, and contract claims against the West Point School Board after it terminated him when he referred to a transgender male student by the student’s preferred name but avoided use of masculine third-person pronouns with respect to the student. In reversing dismissal and remanding for further proceedings on his First Amendment compelled speech claim, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that because he had not insisted on referring to the student by feminine pronouns the school’s concern for orderly administration played “no role as a counterbalance to a teacher’s right not to be compelled to give a verbal salute to an ideological view that violates his conscious and has nothing to do with the specific curricular topic being taught.” Because it held that he had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation, the court also permitted plaintiff’s contract and statutory claims to proceed, noting that his contract was not terminable at will and statute protected him from termination without just cause.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation DiscriminationDate:
ACE Letter to the State Dep.’t on Interview Requirements for Non-Immigrant Visa Applicants (Dec. 8, 2023)
Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 25 other higher education associations to the U.S. Secretary of State on the in-person interview requirement for some non-immigrant visa applicants. In the letter, ACE urged the Secretary of State to extend and make permanent the waiver of the in-person interview requirement established during the COVID-19 pandemic for international students and scholars applying for F-1 and J-1 visas. The current waiver is set to expire at the end of the year.
Topics:
Immigration | International Students
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.