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:
The Pa. State Univ. v. Alpha Upsilon of the Fraternity of Beta Theta Pi, Inc., (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2023)
Order affirming judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, The Pennsylvania State University, sued Alpha Upsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (Fraternity) for specific performance to exercise its right to repurchase a parcel of property after the Fraternity was suspended. In 1894, the University conveyed land to the Fraternity to construct a chapter house for use by active members. In 1928, the University repurchased the first parcel, and conveyed a second parcel for the same purpose via the “1928 Deed.” The 1928 Deed preserved the University’s right to repurchase, should the Fraternity cease to operate a house, occupied by active members. In 2017, after a member died from alcohol-related hazing activity, the Fraternity was suspended by its national organization, and the University required tenets to vacate the chapter house. The University investigated the alleged hazing and then revoked its recognition of the Fraternity for five years. Thereafter, the Fraternity refused to resell the property to the University, which sued. After the University prevailed in the trial court, the Fraternity appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the mere potential of future recolonization and occupancy of the property by an alum’s non-member child did not constitute use under the 1928 Deed, thus triggering the University’s right to purchase the Property.
Topics:
Contracts | Contracts Administration | Hazing | Real Property, Facilities & Construction | Student Organizations | StudentsDate:
Garey v. Anderson, (E.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2023)
Order granting summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a Washington State University (WSU) student, brought Title IX pre-assault and individual private cause of action claims for deliberate indifference and a trio of state law claims against WSU, after she was sexually assaulted in her dormitory by her former partner, Anderson. During their relationship, Anderson assailed plaintiff in his fraternity house blocking her egress from his room, grabbing her arm, throwing a trashcan at her, and pushing her into a metal door. Neither incident was reported. Plaintiff also alleged that Anderson sexually assaulted her, including twice in her dorm room. Plaintiff disclosed both sexual assaults to her counselor and to WSU’s Title IX Office. Anderson – who was previously investigated but found not responsible for another alleged assault – withdrew from WSU, and later pled guilty to domestic violence charges. In granting summary judgment to WSU, the court distinguished Ninth Circuit pre-assault Title IX precedent and found a single prior investigation, which concluded more than a year before plaintiff was assaulted that followed policy and resulted in a finding of non-responsibility against Anderson did not establish deliberate indifference by WSU as to plaintiff. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s individual private cause of action claim for want of deliberate indifference, relying on the fact that WSU officials met with plaintiff right away, were responsive in e-mail correspondence with her, made interim accommodations, increased security patrols near her dorm, and trespassed Anderson from campus all within forty-eight hours of their first meeting with plaintiff. The court applied the Eleventh Amendment to dismiss the three state-law claims.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Student Organizations | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort LitigationDate:
Taylor Haynie v. Wash. Univ. Sch. of Med. Div. of Infectious Diseases, (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2023)
Order granting summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former Research Nurse Coordinator in the Clinical Research Unit of the Washington University School of Medicine’s Division of Infectious diseases, who is an African American female, brought Title VII race discrimination and retaliation against the University after it eliminated her position. Plaintiff was hired for a grant-funded position, and her offer letter stated “your employment will be contingent upon continued receipt of these grant funds.” Plaintiff received poor ratings in her first two annual evaluations after she got into a verbal altercation with a colleague during which she raised her voice and a hand, five patients complained about her venipuncture skills and requested she not draw their blood in the future, and errors were found in untimely submitted patient charts. Between the unsatisfactory evaluations, plaintiff complained of race-based discrimination as she and two African American female colleagues were forced to share an office referred to as the “closet.” An investigation found no evidence of discrimination, and she was offered a new office. Plaintiff also challenged the performance evaluation score in the second evaluation, it was adjusted slightly upward. But after she confronted a co-worker and left the latter in tears, plaintiff was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP), which she asserted was either retaliatory or discriminatory, claims an investigation determined were unfounded. Ultimately, she was furloughed along with 1,300 employees, and her position was eliminated due to cost cutting during the coronavirus pandemic. The court reasoned that plaintiff’s failure to meet the legitimate expectations of the University coupled with the fiscal impacts of the pandemic were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons to eliminate her position. The court found significant that the University gave plaintiff the opportunity to course correct, and thus dismissed her claim for race-based discrimination. Likewise, the court found a one-year gap between plaintiff’s first complaint and the elimination of her position did not establish sufficient causal nexus and dismissed her retaliation claim.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | RetaliationDate:
Eisenhauer v. Culinary Inst. of Am. (2nd Cir. Oct. 17, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part and remanding summary judgment in favor of the Institute. Plaintiff, a female professor at the Culinary Institute of America, brought pay discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the New York Labor Law against the Institution, noting that her pay was several thousand dollars less than that of a male instructor with a similar course load. The Institute’s compensation plan, based partly on a collective bargaining agreement, required fixed pay increases annually but did not provide for equity adjustments. Plaintiff asserted that a disparity based on different starting salaries did not satisfy the EPA’s “factor other than sex” defense because it was not job related. In affirming summary judgment to the Institute on plaintiff’s EPA claim, the Second Circuit held that the statutory language is unambiguous and does not require that the factor other than sex be job related. The court vacated and remanded on plaintiff’s New York Labor Law claim, however, noting that a January 2016 amendment expressly requiring that the factor be “job-related with respect to the position in question.”
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Lewis v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. (M.D. La. Oct. 17, 2023)
Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the scope of a protective order regarding attorney-client privileged redactions in external investigations. Plaintiff, a Louisiana State University (LSU) Athletic Department employee, brought Title VII, Title IX, §1981, §1983, and RICO claims against the LSU Board of Supervisors and individual defendants based on conduct related to the conduct of former head football coach, Les Miles (Miles). In denying Plaintiff’s motion, the court reasoned that absent evidence of a prima facie case that defendants committed one of the three crimes alleged by plaintiff, the crime-fraud exception remained unavailable to pierce the veil of attorney-client privilege attendant to the redacted sections of a student complaint memo (Memo) detailing LSU’s review of allegations made by a student-employee against Miles, and outside counsel’s billing records. Specifically, the court ruled that outsourcing LSU’s investigatory obligations under Title IX to external counsel, did not convert an internal inquiry into allegations of Miles’ alleged conduct to an “official proceeding” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1512 (witness tampering). The court also found that under Louisiana state law (1) settling a student’s related civil claim was not public bribery, and (2) communication between counsel for LSU and Miles about the breadth of details in the Memo did not add up to factually false statements in public records, nor did the legal conclusion that Miles did not violate Title IX.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | External Counsel | General Counsel | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in EmploymentDate:
Burt v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of R.I. (1st Cir. Oct. 13, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiffs, two students enrolled at the University of Rhode Island during Spring 2020, 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. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ tuition claims, finding no plausibly alleged implied contract, and subsequently granted summary judgment on the fees claims. Beginning with the tuition claims, the First Circuit held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged an implied contract based on published statements and prior course of dealings, but it also held that the University had sufficiently established at the motion-to-dismiss stage the affirmative defense of frustration, noting that the Governor’s emergency orders made in-person, on-campus instruction impracticable. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiffs’ contract claims regarding fees, the court held (1) that the University fulfilled its obligations related to the student activities, capital projects, technology, and health services fees and (2) that its contractual obligations as to the use of the Memorial Union and Fitness Center were discharged by substantial frustration. Plaintiffs’ corresponding unjust enrichment claim failed because plaintiffs adduced no evidence to suggest that the University’s use of these funds on alternative services was unjust.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | CoronavirusDate:
ACE Letter to ED re: FAFSA Release Date (Oct. 13, 2023)
Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 11 other higher education associations to the Department of Education requesting a public release date for the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. In requesting a firm release date for the new FAFSA form, ACE noted the need for institutions to plan for a smooth rollout, including through training for staff and outreach to appropriate stakeholders.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
Narayanan v. Midwestern State Univ. (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2023)
Opinion partially vacating summary judgment in favor of the University and remanding. Plaintiff is a former tenured associate professor at Midwestern State University who is of Malaysian national origin. In 2018, after settling a national origin discrimination suit against the University, he did not receive a requested summer teaching assignment. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy while presenting at a conference in Malaysia and was unable to return to the United States for several semesters. Leading up to his termination, the University’s Director of Disability Support Services engaged in an extensive interactive process with plaintiff, offering multiple accommodations, including additional leave, “unless such accommodation would have undue hardship on the functioning of the department or university.” When plaintiff again did not report to teach assigned classes, the University cancelled his employment contract and revoked his tenure. Plaintiff brought failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation claims against the University. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on his failure to accommodate claim, finding his indefinite leave of absence request without a return date was an undue hardship. It vacated summary judgment and remanded on his Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, finding that (1) lost income from summer teaching may qualify as an adverse employment action and (2) although that loss was not an ultimate employment decision, it was sufficient to dissuade a reasonable person from opposing unlawful discrimination.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | RetaliationDate:
Student A v. Liberty Univ. (W.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and dismissing the case. Plaintiffs, three students at Liberty University during Spring 2020, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims related to fees against the University after it cancelled in-person classes and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. Before addressing the motion for class certification, the court found that plaintiffs’ claims are moot and that plaintiffs lack particularized injury fairly traceable to the University to establish standing because the University voluntarily prorated fees and distributed to the students grants from the CARES Act and HEERF funds in amounts that exceeded their asserted injuries. Turning to the motion for class certification, the court noted that the fees charged to individual students varied widely across the University’s seventeen schools and hundreds of courses with separate individualized fees and that student balances were affected differently by scholarships, grants, and prorated refunds. Accordingly, the court found that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification failed for lack of commonality, typicality, predominance, or superiority.
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.