FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Ireland v. Rochester Inst. of Tech. (W.D. N.Y. May 11, 2023)
Decision and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former Director of Donor Stewardship in the Development and Alumni Relations Division at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), brought a retaliation claim against the University after it reorganized the Division in a way that allegedly meant fewer opportunities for promotion and professional growth. Plaintiff alleged that the changes were made in retaliation for her complaints that a supervisor had made inappropriate, sexually suggestive comments. In granting summary judgment to RIT, the court held that plaintiff was unable to establish pretext because she presented no evidence that RIT’s changes to the Division were unnecessary and implemented only to harm her.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | RetaliationDate:
Pranger v. Or. State Univ. (D. Or. May 8, 2023)
Opinion & Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, two students at Oregon State University during Winter, Spring, and Fall quarters of 2020, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus epidemic. Assuming that plaintiffs had a valid contract with the University with terms including in-person instruction and access to campus facilities, the court nevertheless granted summary judgment to the University for two reasons. First, the court held that the unforeseeable pandemic and the Governor’s Executive Orders declaring a state of emergency and prohibiting in-person operations rendered performance by the University impossible and thereby discharged the duty to provide in-person instruction and access to campus facilities. Second, the court also held that (1) plaintiffs manifested their assent to modified contractual terms by paying tuition and attending classes for the Spring 2020 quarter, which began days after the Executive Orders and the University’s announcement of the shift to remote instruction, and (2) this modification was supported by new consideration in the form of “the safety benefits of a remote education during a global pandemic as well as an extension of the deadline to withdraw from classes with a full tuition refund.”
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | CoronavirusDate:
Updated EEOC Guidance re: COVID-19, and the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws (May 15, 2023)
Updated guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws. With the end of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, the EEOC updated 30 questions in its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers Guidance including questions on disability-related inquiries; confidentiality of medical information; hiring and onboarding; disability and reasonable accommodation; pandemic-related harassment due to national origin, race, or other protected characteristics; return to work; vaccinations; and the definition of “disability” under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act as it relates to COVID-19 and Long COVID.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | CoronavirusDate:
Police v. Navarro Coll. (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2023)
Order and Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, an African American student at Navarro College who lived in a campus dormitory, brought Fourth Amendment claims under §1983 against the College and one of its public safety officers following an interaction that began at an off-campus apartment complex. Observing plaintiff and another student sitting outside smoking a cigar, the officer stopped them, found that plaintiff had an empty cylindrical tube that smelled of marijuana, searched a nearby exterior stairwell, and then searched their on-campus dormitory rooms. The court granted the Officer’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s illegal seizure claim up to and including the search of the stairwell, finding the allegations consistent with a Terry stop supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. However, plaintiff sufficiently alleged that his extended detention amounted to an unreasonable seizure since the officers continued to detain him despite having unearthed no evidence of criminal activity. Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged that officers abridged his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully searching his on-campus dormitory room without a warrant or consent. Plaintiff’s claims against the College failed, however, for lack of factual allegations of a policy or widespread practice of similar behavior.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Fourth Amendment & Search and SeizureDate:
Wegmann v. Trs. of John A. Logan Coll. (S.D. Ill. May 10, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student in the Cardiac Sonography Program at John A. Logan College, brought religious discrimination claims against the College, alleging that he was forced to withdraw from the program because it would not assist him in obtaining a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine requirement at his clinical rotation site. Site officials informed him that they do not give exemptions to students, but that they would accept an exemption provided by the College. The College’s clinical site coordinator, however, allegedly declined to assist, citing that the College did not have a vaccination requirement and could not provide an exemption for the clinical site’s requirement. The College moved to dismiss the action based on standing. Denying the motion, the court held that plaintiff alleged a sufficient nexus between his injury of not being able to complete the clinical rotation and the College’s conduct and informal policies.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation | StudentsDate:
Runaway Records Prods. v. Franciscan Univ. of Steubenville (W.D. Pa. May 10, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim. Plaintiff, a production company that entered into a three-year agreement in February 2020 to provide audiovisual and broadcasting services for the Franciscan University of Steubenville, including for in-person conferences, brought contract and conversion claims against the University, alleging that when it cancelled events due to the coronavirus pandemic and terminated its agreement with plaintiff, it retained and used equipment plaintiff had installed on campus. The University, in turn, brought contract and unjust enrichment counterclaims, alleging that it paid plaintiff for costs and equipment related to goods and services that plaintiff did not provide. In dismissing the University’s contract claim, the court held that plaintiff’s nonperformance was excused due to the nonoccurrence of the scheduled events, which were conditions precedent. It held, however, that the University adequately pleaded unjust enrichment in the alternative.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Contracts | Coronavirus | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort LitigationDate:
Esparza v. The Univ. of Tex. at El Paso (Tex. App. May 8, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former Construction Supervisor at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), brought retaliation claims against UTEP after the University terminated her for performance issues, documented over a period of years through a progressive discipline process. At various points, plaintiff filed both EEOC complaints and lawsuits alleging discrimination. The Court of Appeals of Texas found that plaintiff failed to establish causation between her protected activities and her termination, noting that the only protected activity with temporal proximity to her termination was an appeal filed related to a separate dismissal and that she had presented no evidence that UTEP officials were aware of that appeal.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | 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.