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:
Peyton v. Kuhn (W.D. Va. Dec. 1, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former baseball player at Radford University, brought a First Amendment retaliation claim against the University’s baseball coach after the coach did not play him in any games during the 2020-2021 season and then cut him from the team causing him to lose his scholarship and subsequently to transfer from the University. Plaintiff alleged that these actions were in retaliation for complaints he, his parents, and a group of student-athletes made about the coach’s treatment of plaintiff and other players. In denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court found that cutting plaintiff from the team was an adverse action and that the temporal proximity between the complaints and plaintiff’s removal from the team was sufficient to plead a causal relationship.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Student Athlete Issues | StudentsDate:
The Univ. of Hous. v. Kingsbury (Tex. App. Nov. 30, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion reversing and dismissing. Plaintiff, an unsuccessful candidate for a tenure-track position in the Department of Comparative Cultural Studies at the University of Houston who described herself as Canadian and of “Northern European extraction,” brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after it hired a white, Italian male instead. During her on-campus interview, a member of the search committee questioned her ability “as a white person” to understand the topic of her lecture presentation, which prompted another member of the search committee to initiate a complaint with the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity. In dismissing plaintiff’s national-origin discrimination claim, the Court of Appeals of Texas held that she was unable to raise a question as to whether the scores assigned to the successful candidate were pretextual. In dismissing her retaliation claim, it found she was unable to show denial of proper consideration of her application because (1) the committee member who had questioned her was reprimanded and (2) the University had also calculated her interview scores without those of the questioning committee member.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | RetaliationDate:
South v. Cleveland State Univ. (Ohio App. Nov. 30, 2023)
Decision affirming judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, who uses a cane when she walks, sued Cleveland State University after she was injured in its Wolstein Center arena when an usher guided her to a seat where she could catch her breath and the seat gave way under her as she tried to sit down. In affirming judgment in favor of the University, the Court of Appeals of Ohio held that under the reasonable inspection standard of care, the University is only required to make a visual inspection of the 14,000 seats in the arena when there have been no recent complaints of defects in seats rather than to test or inspect the spring mechanism of each seat prior to each performance.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort LitigationDate:
U.S. Dep.’t of Education Regulatory Agenda for Spring 2023—Title IX (Dec. 6, 2023)
U.S. Department of Education Uniform Regulatory Agenda for Fall 2023. The filing indicates that the Department’s Office of Civil Rights plans to issue a final action on Title IX and nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance in March 2024. In a related entry, the Department indicates that it also plans to issue a final rule on Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams in March 2024.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
U.S. Dep.’t of Labor Regulatory Agenda for Spring 2023—FLSA (Dec. 6, 2023)
U.S. Department of Labor Uniform Regulatory Agenda for Fall 2023. The filing indicates that the Department’s Wage and Hour Division plans to issue a Final Rule on Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees in April 2024.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of EmployeesDate:
U.S. Dep.’t of Justice Regulatory Agenda for Spring 2023—Web Accessibility (Dec. 6, 2023)
U.S. Department of Justice Uniform Regulatory Agenda for Fall 2023. The filing indicates that the Department’s Civil Rights Division plans to issue a final action on Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities in April 2024.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Technology | Technology AccessibilityDate:
Tolley v. Mercer Univ. (11th Cir. Nov. 29, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, an unsuccessful candidate for a tenure-track position in the School of Theology at Mercer University who is white, brought a discrimination claim against the University alleging that notes kept by members of the search committee showed a preference to hire a candidate who is African American in order to add to the diversity of the faculty. The University did not share demographic information about the candidates with the search committee, and plaintiff was not offered an interview. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Eleventh Circuit held that although his evidence showed that the “hiring process was infected with an invidious focus on the race of the candidates,” plaintiff’s claim failed because he was unable to demonstrate that the decisionmakers knew his race. In particular, the court found that testimony from a faculty member that he “probably” mentioned to a member of the search committee that plaintiff was his cousin’s niece’s husband was insufficient to defeat testimony from members of the committee that they were unaware of plaintiff’s race when he was dropped from consideration.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin DiscriminationDate:
Doe v. Yeshiva Univ. (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 28, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Yeshiva University, brought Title IX and state-law claims against the University and multiple officials after an investigation found a University basketball player not responsible for sexually assaulting her in his off-campus apartment. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed in her post-assault deliberate indifference, state-law discrimination, and contract claims, finding that she had sufficiently alleged that (1) the law firm investigating the claim did not request evidence from her hospital rape kit or interview witnesses she identified and (2) the notice she received dismissing her complaint did not provide the reasons for the dismissal or a chance to appeal as required by the University’s policies. The court also permitted plaintiff to proceed in her state-law aiding and abetting of discrimination claim against two University officials and the law firm hired to investigate her Title IX claim. It dismissed her Title IX pre-assault and retaliation claims, as well as her IIED and deceptive consumer practices claims.
Topics:
Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Mellowitz v. Ball State Univ. (Ind. Nov. 21, 2023)
Opinion affirming denial of class certification. Plaintiff, a student at Ball State University in spring 2020, on behalf of himself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Indiana General Assembly, however, passed a law retroactively prohibiting class action lawsuits against postsecondary institutions to recover losses related to COVID-19. The trial court denied class certification, but the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed. In vacating and affirming the trial court’s order, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the law constitutionally furthers the public policy objective of reducing institutions’ litigation exposure for their pandemic responses and does not impermissibly interfere with judicial administration. The court also held that (1) the law is not an unconstitutional taking because there is no property right in a class action and (2) limiting his ability to enforce other students’ contract rights does not impair his ability to seek a remedy in his own alleged breach.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | CoronavirusDate:
Lozano v. Baylor Univ. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part the University’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Plaintiff, a former student at Baylor University, brought Title IX and negligence claims against the University, a former football coach, and a former athletic director, alleging that the University did nothing when she reported being sexually assaulted by a football player and that this inaction resulted in additional assaults. Following trial, the court denied the University’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of damages for loss of dignity under Title IX (1) finding lack of precedent as to whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, PLLC barring emotional distress damages under spending-clause statutes extends to loss of dignity damages under Title IX and (2) noting that although the jury found in favor of the plaintiff under Title IX, it awarded no damages on that claim. The court granted the University’s motion as to plaintiff’s gross negligence claims, which had not been included in the second amended complaint, foreclosing availability of punitive damages, but it denied the motion as to her negligence claims.
Topics:
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.