Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
9/22/2023
Settlement Agreement between U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Yale Univ. (Sep. 20, 2023)
Settlement Agreement under the False Claims Act between the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Yale University. This agreement resolves allegations that a University researcher who received compensation from the VA failed to disclose the patents he and four co-inventors received, which disclosure was required by a Cooperative Technology Administration Agreement between the University and the VA. Of note, the VA funding was acknowledged in the patent applications. Under the Agreement, the University and researcher agreed to pay $1,507,743.67, which included restitution for royalties not shared with the VA.
Topics:
False Claims Act (FCA) | Research
Date:
9/22/2023
Helmig v. Univ. of Colo. Bd. of Regents (D. Colo. Sep.12, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former researcher on a limited appointment at the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research who also had an independent consulting business, brought due process and contract claims against the Board of Regents, Institute Officials, and various University compliance and audit officials after he was terminated when an investigation found violations of the University’s conflicts of interest policy. Plaintiff alleged that the investigative report contained inaccurate and misleading statements that damaged his professional opportunities. In permitting plaintiff to proceed on (1) his due process claims against various Institute and compliance and audit officials, and (2) his contract claims against the Board, the court found he had sufficiently alleged a property interest in his continued employment based on his limited appointment and University policies about termination of faculty members for cause. It dismissed his due process claims against the various officials for alleged inaccuracies in the investigated report on grounds of qualified immunity. It also dismissed his claims against the Regents in their individual capacities for want of factual allegations demonstrating their personal involvement.
Topics:
Conflict of Interest | Constitutional Issues | Contracts | Due Process | Research
Date:
9/22/2023
Doe v. Univ. of Iowa (8th Cir. Sep. 14, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment. Plaintiff, a former graduate student and lab manager at the University of Iowa, brought Title IX and due process claims against the University and multiple officials after he was expelled for sexual misconduct related to two female undergraduates he supervised in the lab. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on his Title IX claim, the Eighth Circuit held that (1) plaintiff’s disagreements with the hearing officer’s findings of fact and credibility determinations were insufficient to show an erroneous outcome; (2) neither the hearing officer’s use of the word “fantasy” to describe his account of one of the sexual encounters nor the University’s application of its definition of consent were sufficient to raise questions of gender bias; and (3) neither other litigation nor the University’s efforts to prevent sexual misconduct, which “included ‘expanding programming on healthy masculinity,’” were sufficient to suggest external pressures on the decision-makers in his case. In affirming the disposition of his due process claims, the court held that even though the hearing officer did not ask all the impeachment questions he submitted, the University afforded him a sufficient opportunity to be heard, noting that he had the opportunity to submit additional information after the conclusion of the hearing. It also found that consideration of his leadership role in the lab during the disciplinary process addressed only factual circumstances and did not amount to holding him to a heightened standard without notice.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
9/22/2023
Fisk v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ. (S.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Part. Plaintiffs, former and current varsity student-athletes at San Diego State University on the women’s track and field team and the women’s rowing team, which was eliminated in 2021, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought Title IX claims against the University, alleging it did not provide proportional financial aid to female student-athletes. The court dismissed for lack of standing (1) the claims of the students who graduated or transferred prior to filing the complaint, and (2) the claims of the former members of the rowing team for damages for dates after the elimination of the team because they could no longer be considered student-athletes and there was no longer any scholarship funding for which they might compete. It held, however, that plaintiffs had standing on (1) the claims of a former member of the rowing team who had alleged that she was denied the opportunity to compete for proportional financial aid while the team was still active, and (2) members of the track and field team who had alleged prior and ongoing lost opportunity to compete for financial aid. Applying the “inherently transitory” exception to mootness in class actions, the court further permitted plaintiffs to proceed on their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief even though the only two plaintiffs still at the University are no longer student-athletes.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics
Date:
9/22/2023
Mesbah v. Univ. of Louisville (W.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student and then postdoctoral researcher at the University of Louisville, brought harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII and Title IX against the University, alleging that a research supervisor made unwanted advances and then retaliated against her when she refused and complained to the program director. The court permitted her Title VII harassment and retaliation claims to proceed, finding that the incidents she alleged were sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment and that continuation of the advances, along with other hostile behavior, after she complained to the program director was sufficient to allege retaliation. In dismissing her Title IX deliberate indifference claim, the court noted that the University investigated her complaint and that allegations that the supervisor had harassed at least one other employee emerged only after the investigation. Her Title IX retaliation claim failed because she had not alleged she engaged in any protected activity while she was a Ph.D. student when the events underlying her claim allegedly occurred.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination
Date:
9/22/2023
Prater v. Trs. of Hamline Univ. of Minn. (D. Minn. Sep. 15, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former adjunct instructor in the Art and Digital Media Department at Hamline University, brought state-law religious discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the University after it declined to renew her contract following a campus controversy surrounding art she displayed over Zoom in her World Art class containing images of the Prophet Muhammad. In permitting plaintiff to proceed on her religious discrimination claim, the court found she had sufficiently alleged that the University treated her differently than it would have treated her if she were Muslim. It dismissed her retaliation claim, finding that her statement to the dean that not showing the images would be discriminatory because it would privilege the views of those who objected over the views of those who did not was insufficient to allege a statutorily protected report of discrimination. Her defamation claim failed because assertions that her actions were “Islamophobic,” “disrespectful,” and “inappropriate” were nonactionable expressions of opinion. Her IIED claim failed because plaintiff’s alleged distress resulted not from the alleged statements of University officials but from the subsequent media coverage.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | Retaliation | Tort Litigation
Date:
9/22/2023
Jackson v. Wright (5th Cir. Sep. 15, 2023)
Opinion affirming denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a professor of music theory at the University of North Texas (UNT), is a leading scholar on the Austrian music theorist Heinrich Schenker. He is also director of the Center for Schenkerian Studies and founding editor of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, both of which are housed at and supported by UNT. After plaintiff contributed an article that proved controversial to a symposium in the Journal defending Schenker against charges of racism, University officials investigated the Journal’s editorial practices, removed plaintiff as editor, and suspended the Journal’s activities pending a national search for a new editor. Plaintiff brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the UNT Regents in their individual capacities, alleging an ongoing violation of his First Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In affirming denial of the Regents’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff’s claim against the Regents properly sought only prospective relief and that he had sufficiently alleged an ongoing violation that was fairly traceable to the Regents.
Topics:
Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation
Date:
9/22/2023
DeVore v. Univ. of Ky. Bd. of Trs. (E.D. Ky. Sep. 18, 2023)
Opinion & Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former employee at the University of Kentucky, brought a religious discrimination claim against the University after she was terminated for noncompliance with the University’s policy that employees either receive a COVID vaccine or submit to regular testing. Plaintiff asserted that the University’s policy aimed to “manipulate [her] into taking the ‘vaccine’” and violated her “God-given rights to be able to choose what shall or shall not happen to [her] person.” In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court held that plaintiff failed to “show that she holds a religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement,” finding instead that she had asserted “an isolated moral teaching” and that “granting [her] request would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless exclude for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” The court further held that plaintiff’s proposed accommodation that the University permit her to work remotely or hire an additional employee would have created an undue hardship, noting (1) that because plaintiff was her department’s only administrative employee, her physical presence was necessary to performing the essential function of welcoming students and visitors, and (2) that the expense of a second salary for duplicate work was unreasonable, noting that plaintiff’s position was not filled after her departure and that the department was subsequently eliminated.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
9/22/2023
Tennin v. Coll. of Lake Cnty. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 18, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Director of Student Activities at the College of Lake County who is African American, brought race and age discrimination claims against the College and, under §1983, against his former supervisor, the Dean of Student Affairs, and one of his former subordinates, a Coordinator of Student Organizations and Programs. Plaintiff alleged that the Dean undermined his work and then disciplined him for the failures and that the Coordinator, whom the Dean hired after working with her at a different university and who babysat his children, provided the Dean with information about Plaintiff’s activities and even directed aspects of the alleged sabotage. The court dismissed plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims as time-barred. It permitted his §1983 claims against both the Dean and the Coordinator to proceed, finding he had sufficiently alleged the personal involvement of both in the alleged Constitutional deprivation.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination
Date:
9/22/2023
Troia v. N. Cent. Coll. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 18, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at North Central College in 2020, 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 permitting plaintiff’s contract claim to proceed, the court held that she had sufficiently alleged an implied promise for in-person instruction and services by citing catalog and website descriptions, a registration process that permitted students to choose in-person or online classes, the College’s customary practice, and an admission letter that referred to a community of “resident students.” The court also permitted plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim to proceed, finding that her pleading on that claim incorporated by reference only factual allegations and excluded reference to paragraphs asserting breach of contract.
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.