Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
9/22/2023
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. (La. App. Sep. 19, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sought a writ of mandamus to compel Louisiana State University to release records that were the subject of eight public records requests PETA filed regarding the care and use of birds in the laboratory of a professor in LSU’s Department of Biological Sciences, including photographic and videographic records. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PETA on all of the requests. The Court of Appeals of Louisiana affirmed with respect to records related to the birds’ care, including veterinary care, daily observations, adverse event reports, and disposition records. The court reversed with respect to the videographic records, holding that footage that had not already been the basis for published findings was protected under an exception to the Public Records Law for records on research on subjects of a patentable or licensable nature.
Topics:
Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Privacy & Transparency
Date:
9/22/2023
Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst. Found. (Fla. App. Sep. 20, 2023)
Opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court. In 2007, Florida Atlantic University and the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, Inc. signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing that the Foundation would become a direct-support organization (DSO) of FAU. The MOU provided that FAU would appoint two members of the Foundation’s Board of Directors and that the Board would retain discretion over distribution of funds from the Foundation. The Florida Board of Governors subsequently changed its regulations on approval of DSO budgets, and the Florida Legislature amended the statute on DSOs and DSO board appointments. In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Florida Court of Appeals held that the amended DSO statute unconstitutionally impaired the MOU and that FAU had not sufficiently asserted a public policy interest in DSO oversight that was not already addressed by the two Board appointments provided for in the MOU. It also affirmed the trial court’s holding that the MOU was silent as to budgetary approval and that the amended regulation would not impair the Board’s discretion on distribution of Foundation funds.
Topics:
Foundations & Affiliated Entities | Governance
Date:
9/15/2023
Texas v. United States (S.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2023)
Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiff States’ Motion for Summary Judgment. In 2018, Plaintiffs, Texas and eight other States, challenged the 2012 Memorandum from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The court held that the Memorandum violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) both procedurally for lack of notice and comment rulemaking and substantively by exceeding the statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). While on appeal with the Fifth Circuit, DHS promulgated a Final Rule enacting DACA through notice and comment rulemaking. Though the Fifth Circuit affirmed the legality of the 2012 Memorandum, it remanded for review limited to whether, in light of the administrative record, the Final Rule was materially different from the 2012 Memorandum. On this limited remand, the court granted the States’ Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that there were no material differences and that its prior analysis of the 2012 Memorandum applies equally to the Final Rule.
Topics:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff
Date:
9/15/2023
Allen v. Benson (E.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2023)
Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Texas at Dallas, proceeding pro se, brought discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims against the University and multiple officials after she objected to the University’s COVID-19 testing requirement on religious grounds and was terminated after she exhausted available leave time. Plaintiff asserted that she practiced “faith-based decision making and not fear-based decision making” and that the University’s offer of a saliva test as an alternative to a nose swab was not an appropriate accommodation. Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court permitted her Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim to proceed against the University, holding that whether an accommodation of plaintiff’s beliefs would have imposed an undue hardship is a fact-intensive inquiry better resolved at the summary judgement stage or at trial. It dismissed her ADA claim for failure to allege she was a qualified individual with a disability.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
9/15/2023
Misenheimer v. Univ. of S.C. (D. S.C. Sep. 13, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is a graduate of the School of Visual Arts and Design (SVAD) at the University of South Carolina, who then became a SVAD technician and adjunct instructor. She brought multiple claims against the University and a tenured colleague, who had also been her instructor, alleging that he created a hostile environment and retaliated against her after she complained about his behavior. In adopting the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge on the University’s motion for summary judgment, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims, finding that evidence of plaintiff’s reports of harassing and retaliatory behavior by the colleague were sufficient to raise fact questions of a hostile environment and constructive discharge. The court also permitted her to proceed on her negligent supervision and retention and her contract claims with respect to the University’s enforcement of its policies. Her Title IX claims, however, were time-barred. In departing from a second Report and Recommendation on the colleague’s motion for summary judgment, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on her tortious interference with a contract claim, finding sufficient evidence in the record suggesting that but for his behavior her contractual relationship with the University would have continued.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment
Date:
9/15/2023
Gray v. Bd. of Trs. of the Ga. Military Coll. (M.D. Ga. Sep. 13, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Administrative Assistant at Georgia Military College, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the College after her position was eliminated in June 2020 in a reduction in force (RIF), alleging that it eliminated her position because she had requested additional measures to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus due to her “underlying health conditions” and that it did not consider her for other open positions because she is African American. The court granted summary judgment to the College on her discrimination claim, finding that of the two positions plaintiff applied for one was filled by an African American and one remained unfilled for a year. In granting summary judgment to the College on her retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the court held that a “vague request for accommodations due to ‘underlying health conditions’” was insufficient to constitute protected activity.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation
Date:
9/15/2023
Hannibal-Fisher v. Grand Canyon Univ. (D. Ariz. Sep. 12, 2023)
Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs, two students in on-campus degree programs at Grand Canyon University during the Spring 2020 semester, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The court previously dismissed the contract claim related to tuition and certified the class for the contract claims related to housing costs and fees in related litigation. Though the court found commonality among the unjust enrichment and money had and received claims related to tuition costs, it denied class certification, finding that the common issues do not predominate because plaintiffs failed to show that damages could be determined on a class-wide basis because students (1) paid different amounts of tuition for a range of classes with different expectations for benefits, and (2) received different distributions of CARES Act funds depending upon which criteria they individually met for the assistance.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus
Date:
9/15/2023
Dillow v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. (W.D. Va. Sep. 12, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Virginia Tech, brought Title IX claims against the University and due process claims against two conduct officials after he was suspended for two years for sexual misconduct. In dismissing his second amended complaint, the court held that his Title IX claim failed because he alleged no facts suggesting that the alleged erroneous outcome was attributable to gender discrimination. His due process claims failed because his assertion of a property interest in his education at Virginia Tech was conclusory and the fact that he was suspended for two years was insufficient to allege that the University had altered or extinguished a legal right or status.
Topics:
Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
9/15/2023
Locke v. N.C. State Univ. (E.D. N.C. Sep. 11, 2023)
Order granting the University’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former soccer player at North Carolina State University, brought Title IX claims against the University, alleging that between 2015 and 2017 the team trainer, who was also the University’s director of sports medicine, abused him sexually, including by directing him to shower in front of him and touching him inappropriately under the guise of performing a sports massage. After plaintiff reported the abuse to law enforcement in 2021, a Title IX investigation found that in early 2016 the head soccer coach notified the senior associate athletic director that he suspected the trainer was engaged in sexual grooming of male student-athletes. The trainer was moved to more administrative duties but remained with the University. In related cases, plaintiffs John Doe and John Doe 2 also made similar claims. In dismissing plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the court held the report of suspected sexual grooming was insufficient to allege that an official with the authority to take corrective measures had actual notice of the abuse.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
9/15/2023
Gash v. Rosalind Franklin Univ. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 11, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Rosalind Franklin University, brought Title IX and contract claims against the University after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. In dismissing his Title IX claim, the court held that alleged flaws in the University’s process demonstrate at most pro-victim bias and that reference to 2011 and 2014 guidance from the Department of Education that has since been repealed is insufficient to allege gender bias. In dismissing his contract claim, the court held that plaintiff’s assertions of procedural shortcomings were insufficient to allege that the University’s decision was without a rational basis as required to overcome the reluctance of Illinois courts to interfere with the academic affairs of universities.
Topics:
Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

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.