Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
7/21/2023
Rogoff v. Long Island Univ. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 6, 2023)
Decision/Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of business and former dean of the Brooklyn School of Business at Long Island University, brought contract, age discrimination, and retaliation claims against the University after it declined to renew his administrative contract and reduced his salary to that of a full professor. The University also changed his status to adjunct faculty with loss of benefits after he presented a University Trustee with a “memo of concerns” critical of the University’s administration, though it later revoked the decision. The court awarded summary judgment to the University on plaintiff’s contract claim, holding that a contract provision referencing “other terms and conditions of employment … in accordance with University policy,” without more, was insufficient to support his expectation of a sabbatical year and salary of at least 75% of his prior administrative salary. It permitted him to proceed on his age discrimination and retaliation claims with respect to his demotion to adjunct status, finding conflicting pre-trial testimony and the temporal proximity between his “memo of concerns” and his demotion sufficient to raise triable issues of fact.
Topics:
Age Discrimination | Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
7/21/2023
Bennett v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist. (N.D. Tex. July 5, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former Executive Vice President for Advancement with the Tarrant County College District (TCCD), brought retaliation and contract claims against TCCD after its then-Chancellor placed her on an executive development plan and declined to renew her contract following her decision to counsel a subordinate employee related to a workplace conflict. Plaintiff offered, but attempted to withdraw her resignation and was subsequently placed on administrative leave after she filed an internal grievance against the Chancellor. Prior to her last day, she also filed discrimination and retaliation charges with the Texas Workforce Commission and the EEOC. The court permitted plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim to proceed, finding sufficient temporal proximity between her EEOC charge and TCCD’s refusal to permit her to withdraw her resignation. The court, however, dismissed her contract claims, holding that (1) that TCCD’s policies against discrimination and retaliation do not create a contractual right where Title VII is the exclusive remedy, (2) that its policies did not specifically and expressly limit its ability to terminate at-will employees, and (3) that plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded a violation of TCCD’s “Freedom from Reprisals” policy because counseling her subordinate was not a “complaint” within the meaning of the policy.
Topics:
Contracts | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation
Date:
7/21/2023
Hudgins v. Bd. of Educ. (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, two former Chicago Public Schools students, sued the Chicago Board of Education, the David Lynch Foundation (DLF), and the University of Chicago, asserting that a “Quiet Time” program allegedly incorporating elements of Hindu religion and Transcendental Meditation violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The program was administered by DLF pursuant to a services contract and evaluated by the University pursuant to a “Master Services Agreement” for research and evaluation of various projects involving students. Plaintiffs allege that they felt pressured to engage in prayer and meditation practices that were inconsistent with their own religious beliefs. The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed against both the Board and DLF, finding the assertion of the services contract between the Board and DLF sufficiently alleged a policy or practice as required to establish Monell liability under §1983. It dismissed their claims against the University, however, finding that its “Master Services Agreement” for evaluation of educational programs did not sufficiently allege involvement in such a policy or practice.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
Date:
7/21/2023
Vazquez v. Rider Univ. (N.J. Super. App. Div. June 29, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiffs, multiple stakeholders from the former Westminster Choir College, in consolidated cases, sued Rider University to prevent the sale of the Choir College or its relocation from its Princeton campus to Rider’s Lawrenceville campus. In 1991, Westminster merged with Rider University. In 2018, after announcing significant financial need, Rider announced a plan to sell the College to a for-profit Chinese Education Technology Company, though the deal fell through. Rider subsequently moved the College to its Lawrenceville campus. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, finding that under the terms of the Merger Agreement plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce Rider’s obligations under that Agreement. The Appellate Division reversed as to a group of students and faculty of the Choir College, finding (1) that they were third-party beneficiaries of the Merger Agreement and (2) that they had sufficiently alleged that Rider acted arbitrarily and in bad faith in its proposed sale of the College to a company not qualified to run the College to gain contractual standing to sue.
Topics:
Contracts | Financial Exigency & Institutional Merger & Closure | Governance | Real Estate Transactions | Real Property, Facilities & Construction
Date:
7/21/2023
O’Brien v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. June 29, 2023)
Opinion affirming denial of a Writ of Mandate. Plaintiff, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who was censured and suspended for a year in 2020 related to an allegation that he sexually harassed a graduate student from another institution, at an overseas conference in 2012, sought a writ of mandate setting the sanction aside, asserting multiple procedural violations. In affirming denial, the California Court of Appeals first held that the University’s three-year rule on disciplinary proceedings was not triggered by a 2014 complaint that lacked sufficient allegations to warrant an investigation but was triggered in 2017 when the graduate student submitted a complaint. The court then affirmed the Privilege and Tenure Committee’s interpretation of the Faculty Code of Conduct that held that the prohibition on discrimination against or harassment of a “colleague” included a graduate student from another institution attending an overseas conference. Finally, the court also held that plaintiff failed to show that the sanction was unsupported by the evidence in the record or was the result of an unfair proceeding.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination
Date:
7/21/2023
Alderman v. Bd. of Governors of the Colo. State Univ. (Colo. App. June 29, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part dismissal and remanding. Plaintiff, a student at Colorado State University during spring 2020, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against CSU after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s contract claim, the Court of Appeals of Colorado held that the closures were fairly within the meaning of a state statute, included by operation of law in any contract between plaintiff and CSU, providing that the board may “temporarily suspend a university in case of fire, the prevalence of fatal diseases, or other unforeseen calamity.” It reversed dismissal of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, however, holding that because plaintiff’s remedy under her implied-in-fact contract with CSU is unavailable due to the operation of state statute, equity requires that she be permitted to pursue her claim in the alternative for unjust enrichment.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus
Date:
7/14/2023
Delisle v. McKendree Univ. (7th Cir. July 12, 2023)
Opinion reversing dismissal and remanding. Plaintiff, a student at McKendree University during spring 2020, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. In reversing dismissal, the Seventh Circuit applied its holdings in similar recent cases to find that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an implied contract under Illinois law through reference to various website and catalogue statements and a pre-pandemic course of practice. It also held that plaintiff should be permitted the opportunity to amend her complaint with respect to her unjust enrichment claim to cure the error of incorporating contract allegations.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus
Date:
7/14/2023
Young Conservatives of Tex. Found. v. Smatresk (5th Cir. July 10, 2023)
Opinion reversing and vacating injunction. Plaintiff, on behalf of its members who attend or have attended the University of North Texas and who are United States citizens from states other than Texas, sought a permanent injunction barring the University from carrying out a provision of the Texas Education Code permitting undocumented immigrants to establish residency and qualify for in-state tuition rates. The district court granted the injunction, finding that the Texas Code was preempted by a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) that says that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). In reversing and vacating, the Fifth Circuit held that the IIRIRA provision expresses only the condition precedent that U.S. citizens must be eligible for a benefit before illegal aliens are made eligible and that this does not expressly preempt the Texas Code provision setting tuition rates for those who satisfy residency requirements. It similarly held that the Texas Code provisions did not conflict with the objectives of the IIRIRA because it only imposes nonresident tuition rates on those who do not establish Texas residency, whether they are aliens or citizens.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) | Employment of Foreign Nationals | Faculty & Staff
Date:
7/14/2023
Saeedy v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (9th Cir. July 10, 2023)
Memorandum reversing dismissal and remanding. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of California, Irvine who was diagnosed with dyscalculia, brought a failure to accommodate claim against the University after it informed him there was no appropriate equivalent for the math requirement for the political science major. The district court dismissed his claim as time barred, holding that his claim accrued when he received a letter from the Dean of the School of Social Sciences denying his request for a waiver. In reversing and remanding, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff had plausibly alleged that he continued to pursue accommodations through the Department of Humanities and did not know of his injury until that request was ultimately denied.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity
Date:
7/14/2023
Porter v. Bd. of Trs. of N.C. State Univ. (4th Cir. July 6, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a tenured professor in the College of Education at North Carolina State University, brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the University, University officials, and multiple colleagues after he was removed from a student advising role in the program and assigned an additional course to teach due to his lack of collegiality in criticizing efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the School and the field. In affirming dismissal, the Fourth Circuit held that plaintiff’s comments to his colleagues about department operations were unprotected speech. Plaintiff had also written a personal blog post characterizing a professional association as “woke” that was mentioned during the keynote address at the association’s conference. Though the court assumed the post was protected speech, it nevertheless held that plaintiff failed to establish it as the but-for cause of his removal because the blog post lacked temporal proximity and he did not address his colleagues’ frustration that he had not proactively addressed student and faculty concerns about the controversy.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

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.