Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
8/18/2023
Griffin v. Univ. of Me. Sys. (D. Me. Aug. 16, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former tenured professor at the University of Southern Maine, brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the University and its President, after she was terminated in September 2021 for challenging the University’s COVID-19 vaccination and facemask policies. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed in her claim against the President in his official capacity, finding she had sufficiently alleged her demands that the University provide evidence to counter her own assertions about the efficacy of vaccinations and masking was speech about a matter of public concern outside of the scope of her duties as a professor. It held, however, that her constitutional claims against the President in his personal capacity were barred by qualified immunity.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Coronavirus | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation
Date:
8/18/2023
Doe v. Haverford Coll (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2023)
Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is a recent graduate of Haverford College and a former co-captain of a varsity sports team. Following rumors that he had sexually assaulted a female student, plaintiff, at his coach’s suggestion, emailed teammates that he would “briefly step away from the team,” but after the Title IX Office declined to open an investigation, the coach denied his request to rejoin the team, citing other players’ concerns. Plaintiff brought contract, defamation, and Title IX claims against the College and his former coach. The court permitted his contract claim against the college to proceed, finding he had sufficiently alleged a breach of the College’s Sexual Misconduct Policy, which stated that it would not impose a disciplinary sanction “arising from an allegation of Sexual Misconduct without holding a Hearing and permitting an Appeal, unless otherwise resolved through an Alternative Resolution Process.” The court also permitted his defamation claim against the coach to proceed, finding that statements about the alleged assault and about plaintiff’s mental health made in a meeting with administrators and plaintiff’s co-captains were defamatory and that any determination that the statements were privileged or protected opinion was premature at this point. It dismissed his Title IX claim, however, finding he had not alleged that he was excluded or harassed on the basis of his sex.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Sexual Misconduct | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort Litigation
Date:
8/18/2023
Ogdon v. Grand Canyon Univ. (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2023)
Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student in an online master’s degree program at Grand Canyon University who sought to become a mental health therapist, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought RICO, and California False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and unjust enrichment claims against the University and multiple individual officials after she completed the program and learned that it would not be accepted by California licensing authorities. Plaintiff alleged that University counselors and staff assured her both before and after enrolling that the program would meet her needs. The court dismissed her RICO claim because she had not plausibly alleged that the defendants conducted a separate, distinct enterprise and because she had not alleged they had committed at least two acts of racketeering activity. It permitted her FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims to proceed, however, finding she had alleged with sufficient particularity that false or misleading statements about the University’s professional programs’ accreditation were targeted at current and prospective students. It also permitted her unjust enrichment claim to proceed, finding the University’s enrollment agreement was outside of the scope of the pleadings.
Topics:
Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Admissions | Compliance & Risk Management | Program Integrity & Gainful Employment | Students
Date:
8/18/2023
Reiss v. Tex. A&M Univ. (S.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2023)
Memorandum and Recommendation granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student in the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program at Texas A&M University who received accommodations for scoliosis, brought discrimination and failure to accommodate claims against the University after she failed her small animal general surgery rotation and was dismissed from the program. After she was dismissed from the program, plaintiff took a medical deferral rather than appealing her failing grade. The University denied her request to return to active status without first successfully appealing the grade. In recommending summary judgment in favor of the University on her discrimination claim, the Magistrate Judge held that plaintiff failed to identify any evidence indicating her disability was a motivating factor in her dismissal. Her failure to accommodate claim similarly failed because she was unable to show that she was qualified to continue in the program or that her readmission to the program after her failing grade was a reasonable accommodation.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity
Date:
8/18/2023
Williamson v. Univ. of Louisville (W.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Louisville who was approved for 1.5x time for assignments as an accommodation for a learning disability, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after he failed to complete assignments for a summer online course with no time limits other than the end of the term. Less than four hours before that deadline, he emailed the professor that he was having trouble with his auto-reader. When she required him to document this issue with technical support, he accused her of refusing to provide the accommodation and eventually filed a grievance. When the fall term began, he dropped two of his four courses to “focus” on the grievance process, which resulted in ineligibility for his Pell Grant, a balance due, and a block on future registration. In granting summary judgment to the University, the court held that plaintiff’s discrimination claim failed for lack of evidence that the University held animus toward the disabled or that it treated comparable non-disabled students differently. Though the court found plaintiff had satisfied his prima facie case of retaliation because his Pell Grant was revoked shortly after he filed his grievance, it held he failed to show that his loss of eligibility due to his shift to a part-time schedule was pretextual.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
8/18/2023
Turner v. Bd. of Supervisors of the Univ. of La. Sys. (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2023)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former tenured English professor at Nicholls State University, brought a federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference claim and state-law disability discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging that following her diagnosis with irritable bowel syndrome and approval for intermittent FMLA leave, the University nevertheless required her to submit doctor’s notes for each absence and reassigned her to the Writing Lab allegedly as a way to force her to retire. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Fifth Circuit found that her interference claim failed because the University had required the documentation only for plaintiff to collect paid sick leave for her otherwise unpaid FMLA leave. Her retaliation claim failed because she had not identified any protected activity in her opening brief, and her discrimination claim failed because she admitted that her request to teach all of her classes online would have required the University to reassign adjunct professors already scheduled to teach the classes.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation
Date:
8/11/2023
Doe v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. (4th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a student at Virginia Tech, sued the University and numerous officials after he was suspended for a year and a half for domestic violence. The district court dismissed his claims, finding he had not alleged a cognizable liberty or property interest in his continuing education. The Fourth Circuit, however, assumed such an interest and affirmed instead on the grounds that he failed to allege he was deprived of sufficient process. In this, it held that it was sufficient that the University notified him of the charges against him one week after he received its completed investigative report, but two months prior to the hearing that resulted in his suspension. His claim that he was not permitted to interview his witnesses during the hearing because they were all away for the summer failed because he had not alleged that they were unable to provide testimony by phone or video or that he sought to delay the hearing until they could attend. Finally, the court held that his assertion that his accuser suggested for the first time in her testimony at the hearing that he had worked to keep her away from her family and friends was not sufficient to allege a due process violation, noting that it has not held that university students have a right to advance notice of the evidence to be presented against them.
Topics:
Student Conduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
Date:
8/11/2023
Malhotra v. Univ. of Ill. At Urbana-Champaign (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in January 2021, brought due process claims against multiple University officials after he was suspended for two semesters for being present at a party at his fraternity house in violation of COVID restrictions. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit held that he failed to allege a constitutionally protected property right in continued enrollment because he failed to allege facts sufficient to suggest the existence of an express or implied contract with the University to suspend him only for good cause or to follow its own procedures. It dismissed his claim for monetary damages against the officials in their individual capacities, finding his assertion that future disclosures of his disciplinary record “may” affect his career prospects was speculative.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Student Conduct | Students
Date:
8/11/2023
Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa. (W.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2023)
Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of a football player at California University of Pennsylvania who died of COVID-19 in September 2020, brought substantive due process and state-law claims against the University, alleging that it took insufficient measures “to prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19” when it permitted student-athletes to return to campus for Fall 2020. In dismissing plaintiff’s substantive due process claims with prejudice, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege conduct that shocks the conscience, noted the numerous mitigation actions taken by the University mentioned in plaintiff’s factual allegations. The court deferred a decision on exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims pending consideration of claims against one defendant who did not appear in this action.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Coronavirus | Due Process | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation
Date:
8/11/2023
Flores v. Bennett (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023)
Memorandum affirming preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, three individual students at Clovis Community College and the Young Americans for Freedom at Clovis Community College (YAF), sought a preliminary injunction in their First Amendment challenge to the College’s Flyer Policy after officials permitted them to post pro-life flyers on designated “Free Speech Kiosks” but not on bulletin boards reserved for student materials. The policy permitted Student Center staff to withhold posting permission for materials that contain “inappropriate or offensive language or themes.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the basis of overbreadth and vagueness, finding no error in the holding (1) that “a ban on ‘inappropriate and offensive language or themes’ is likely too broad to be ‘reasonably related to legitimate pedagogically concerns’” or (2) that the policy invited arbitrary enforcement because it lacked a sufficient “degree of specificity and clarity.”
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech

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.