Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Monge v. Univ. of Pa., et al. (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2023)

    Memorandum granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and curator at its Penn Museum, brought defamation, defamation by implication, false light, and civil aiding and abetting claims against the University, its former President, and former Provost related to a statement they issued to Museum employees in April 2021 concerning human remains that had been kept at the Museum from the 1985 police bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia. In dismissing plaintiff’s defamation, defamation by implication, and false light claims, the court held that (1) plaintiff is a limited public figure as to this topic because she used the remains in a course titled “Real Bones: Adventures in Forensic Anthropology” that she published in 2019 on the Coursera online platform and (2) she failed to plead actual malice. Turning to her claim that defendants aided and abetted various media outlets, reporters, and commentators also named as defendants in the case (Media Defendants) in publishing defamatory stories about her role in relation to the handling of the remains, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege they knew of or substantially assisted the Media Defendants in the alleged tortious conduct. In a related Memorandum, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the Media Defendants.  

    Topics:

    Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 73 v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. (C.D. Ill. May 22, 2023)

    Order & Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the union representing groups of service employees at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, brought a First Amendment challenge after the University’s Board Secretary denied their requests to speak during a public comment period of an upcoming Board meeting. The Secretary cited a rule that the Board does not hear presentations on issues under negotiation in the collective bargaining process. In denying the Board’s Motion to Dismiss, the court first held that the public comment period was a limited public forum, noting that requests to comment must be approved by the Board Secretary and that comments are limited to topics under the Board’s jurisdiction. It then held that though the rule was neutral as to viewpoint, it was not reasonable in light of the Board’s asserted purpose of avoiding unauthorized agreements outside of the collective bargaining process that would violate state labor law. In this, it noted both that it would be hard to forge an unauthorized agreement in an open meeting and that the danger is greater in direct email correspondence, which the Board had suggested as an alternative way for the public to address the Trustees. The court, however, dismissed plaintiff’s state Open Meetings Act challenge for lack of jurisdiction. 

    Topics:

    Collective Bargaining | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Governance

  • Date:

    Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State Univ. (M.D. Tenn. May 19, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a professor of public management and criminal justice at Austin Peay State University, brought hostile work environment and retaliatory hostile work environment claims against the University based on a series of perceived administrative slights and a denied joint appointment to the restructured Public Management and Criminal Justice Departments.  In dismissing her hostile work environment claim, the court found that most of plaintiff’s allegations concerning employment-related actions were factually insufficient to support an inference of race-based harassment. It found only three actions that were potentially harassing in nature, including two comments that were arguably insults related to her work and one instance of scolding in front of a colleague. It held, however, that these were insufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment or to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Imungi v. Va. Commonwealth Univ. (E.D. Va. May 19, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, an associate professor in the School of Social Work (SSW) at Virginia Commonwealth University who was born and raised in Kenya, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after the SSW Dean declined to renew her one-year administrative appointment as Director of Field Education, a position that was charged with supporting the Dean’s vision for the SSW. Plaintiff’s discrimination claim failed because (1) complaints about her communications with others and clashes with the Dean over priorities confirmed that she did not meet the Dean’s legitimate performance expectations and (2) the interim Director who had never been evaluated by the Dean and who was never a permanent Director was not an adequate comparator. Her retaliation claim failed because the Dean had asked for her resignation prior to a public assembly on racism and discrimination in the SSW at which plaintiff made remarks she asserted were protected activity.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Frierson v. The Shaw Univ. (E.D. N.C. May 19, 2023)

    Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former Director of Student Retention at Shaw University, brought a Title IX claim against the University after he was terminated for sexually harassing a student.  In response to an OCR investigation that found the University had not given him specific notice of the allegations against him, reasonable opportunity to respond, or an opportunity to confront or question his accuser, the University reopened the investigation with an impartial investigator.  Plaintiff declined to participate, and the University upheld its decision to terminate him.  In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the court held that no rational jury could find he complied with the University’s policies or that the decision to terminate him was based on his sex.   

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    Beuca v. Wash. State Univ. (E.D. Wash. May 19, 2023)

    Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former medical student employed by Washington State University and completing a residency at Providence Regional Medical Center, brought discrimination claims against the University after it declined to grant him a religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination requirement and terminated him, even though the Center had granted the exemption. In granting the University’s Motion to Dismiss, the court held that (1) plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory because he alleged no facts as to the nature of his sincerely held religious belief or when or how he had requested the exemption from the University and (2) the University successfully asserted undue hardship because permitting plaintiff to work in a hospital without a vaccination posed an increased risk to patients of COVID-19 exposure. 

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    Brown v. Univ. of Rochester (N.Y. App. Div. May 18, 2023)

    Opinion affirming denial of defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff alleged that in 1984, when she was a 17-year-old freshman at the University of Rochester, she was raped by a resident of an on-campus fraternity house. Under New York’s Child Victims Act, plaintiff brought negligence claims against the University for allegedly failing to (1) supervise students, (2) institute policies to prevent fraternity members from serving alcohol to minors, and (3) properly investigate or notify authorities of the report of sexual misconduct. The trial court dismissed the third claim but permitted the others to proceed. In affirming, the New York Appellate Division held that “where, as here, a complaint alleges that a university received credible reports of ongoing and pervasive criminal conduct against students, perpetrated on campus by other students within the university’s control, the university had a legal duty to take appropriate responsive action.”  

    Topics:

    Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Sampay v. Am. Univ. (D.C. May 18, 2023)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former employee in the Office of Information Technology at American University, alleged retaliation after she was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and then terminated for repeated performance issues. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the D.C. Circuit held that plaintiff was unable to establish pretext, noting that although her immediate supervisor knew of her complaints to the University’s HR office about hostile treatment, she was unable to demonstrate that his supervisor, who monitored her PIP and ultimately decided on her termination, was also aware of the complaints.  

    Topics:

    Faculty & Staff | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Papin v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. (S.D. Miss. May 18, 2023)

    Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Plaintiff is a former medical resident at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) who was placed on a Remediation Agreement for providing poor patient care. After signing the Agreement, plaintiff did not return to work. He then alleged breach of contract when UMMC terminated his employment prior to the Agreement’s 60-day period, and a jury found in his favor. The court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that plaintiff’s promise to fulfill the duties of his original employment contract with UMMC was not new consideration and did not support a valid modification of the original employment contract.  

    Topics:

    Contracts

  • Date:

    Orr v. S. Dakota Bd. of Regents (D. S.D. May 11, 2023)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track instructor of health and physical education at Northern State University, brought multiple discrimination and retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after he was denied tenure due to insufficient scholarship. Leading up to this decision, plaintiff took 6 weeks of paid parental leave early in 2018, returning approximately a month before he was informed of his tenure denial. Plaintiff claimed that the University unlawfully interfered with his rights under the FMLA by declining to extend 12 weeks of paid leave. The court disagreed. Although FMLA permits eligible employees to take 12 weeks of leave, the leave need not be paid. Further, plaintiff never requested an additional 6 weeks, thus extinguishing any rights he may have otherwise had under the Act. However, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed on his FMLA retaliation claim based on disputed facts about whether plaintiff was denied tenure for insufficient scholarship, as the Tenure Committee represented, or whether shifting explanations about plaintiff’s collegiality coupled with animosity and controversy related to plaintiff’s parental leave “more likely motivated” the tenure decision. The court dismissed plaintiff’s Title IX claim for lack of an adequate comparator but permitted him to proceed in his First Amendment retaliation claim against the Dean. 

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

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.

Register