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:
CUPA-HR Comment Letter to DOL re: NPRM on Overtime Exemptions (Nov. 7, 2023)
Comment Letter from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) the American Council on Education (ACE) and 47 other higher education organizations on the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Overtime Exemptions. Through the letter, the organizations recommend that the DOL should not update the salary threshold for overtime exemption so soon after its 2020 update, that it should lower the proposed minimum threshold and consider room and board within employee’s total salary for considering whether an employee meets the minimum salary threshold, that it should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold, and that it should extend the effective date of any final rule from 60 days after its publication to 180 days after publication.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of EmployeesDate:
Phillips v. Collin Cmty. Coll. Dist. (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former professor at Collin College, brought First Amendment claims against the College and multiple officials, alleging that his contract was not renewed because of various statements he made in the press, on social media, or in the classroom about removal of Confederate monuments, the 2019 El Paso shooter, and the College’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, including its recommendation that faculty not discuss masking. The court granted the College’s motion for summary judgment finding that the College’s policy on Professional Ethics, which required employees to “act in public affairs in such a manner as to bring credit to the College District,” and its policy on Employee Expression, which required disagreements with policies to be channeled through existing committees, were not facially prior restraints on expression, and created neither an outright ban on speech nor a deterrent to a broad category of expression by a large number of potential speakers. In denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s as-applied prior restraint and overbreadth claims, the court reserved the issues until factual questions were resolved.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free SpeechDate:
Doe v. The Pa. State Univ. (M.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee of the Nittany Lion Inn, which is owned by Penn State University, alleged that she became pregnant after she was sexually assaulted by a co-worker, who then harassed her, demanding she terminate the pregnancy. Plaintiff reported the harassment and requested to work different shifts than her alleged harasser. Her manager reduced the number of shifts they worked together and offered to transfer her from dishwashing shifts to housekeeping, but plaintiff quit, saying she felt she was being pushed out. She brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University under Titles VII and IX. The court ruled that a reasonable juror could find that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive. The court then permitted plaintiff’s discrimination claim under Title VII to proceed, finding a question as to whether the manager took sufficient measures to end the alleged harassment, but it granted summary judgment in favor of the University on her claim under Title IX, finding no juror could conclude that the manager was deliberately indifferent. It granted summary judgment to the University on plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding no evidence to suggest that the proposed transfer was motivated by discriminatory animus.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Pepper v. Brown Univ. (D. R.I. Nov. 2, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, pro se, a former food service employee at Brown University who was diagnosed with ADHD, which he asserted included sensitivity to sounds and hypervigilance, brought disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after he was fired for violently assaulting a co-worker. The co-worker admitted to managers that he had previously antagonized plaintiff by sneaking up on him and making loud noises. Prior to the unprovoked assault, the University admonished the co-worker, took steps to limit his interactions with plaintiff, and began a process to find plaintiff a new work location on campus. In granting summary judgment to the University on his hostile work environment claim, the court found that plaintiff offered no evidence of disability-based discriminatory animus, noting that the co-worked had no knowledge of plaintiff’s ADHD. Turning to his failure to accommodate claim, the court found that (1) plaintiff had produced insufficient evidence that his ADHD caused a substantial limitation of a major life activity; (2) he was not an otherwise qualified individual because compliance with the University’s Workplace Violence Policy was an essential job function; and (3) the University took steps to stop the inappropriate behavior and provided him with information on the accommodations process, but that plaintiff himself had not yet provided necessary documentation. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed because he provided no evidence of continued harassment after he initially complained to managers about the co-worker’s behavior.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | RetaliationDate:
Kilborn v. Amiridis, et al. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2023)
Opinion and Order granting-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of law at the University of Illinois, brought multiple claims, including First Amendment retaliation and tort claims, against multiple officials after he was sanctioned for harassment and creating fear of retaliation in response to student criticisms of his use of derogatory slurs in his employment law final exam hypothetical. The court dismissed plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to allege speech on a matter of public concern, finding that (1) the use of epithets in the exam hypo added little to public discourse since “a student’s response to a written exam question remains limited to the professor grading the exam,” (2) conversations with individual students over email and Zoom about the hypo were nonpublic and reflected only his personal feeling of grievance over the controversy, and (3) transcripts of in-class discussions in which he used other language at issue in the investigation revealed that the language was used in discussions of topics unrelated to matters of public concern. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, thus, terminating the federal case.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | RetaliationDate:
Duke-Koelfgen v. Alamo Colleges Dist. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured Associate Professor of composition and literature at San Antonio College, brought First Amendment claims against the College and individual officials after she was twice disciplined for unprofessional communications related to emails she sent demanding that students be permitted to use scholarship funds to take her class even though it was outside of their degree plans and criticizing officials who had requested volunteers to cover classes for an instructor who was ill. In granting the College’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the speech in plaintiff’s emails was not protected by the First Amendment because it occurred when she was performing duties within the scope of her job responsibilities, noting that she sent the messages to College administrators in her capacity as an Associate Professor addressing College procedures.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free SpeechDate:
U.S. Dep.’t of Education Dear Colleague Letter on the Obligation to Address Discrimination, Including Harassment (Nov. 7, 2023)
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on the obligation under Title VI to address discrimination, including harassment, on campus. Noting “a nationwide rise in reports of hate crimes and harassment, including an alarming rise in disturbing antisemitic incidents and threats to Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian students on college campuses,” the DCL reviews institutions’ obligations under Title VI and its implementing regulations to provide a learning environment that is free from discrimination, including harassment based on an individual’s actual or perceived “shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” and “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.” The DCL also reiterates that harassment may create a hostile environment even if it is not directed at a particular individual.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination
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.