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:
Sullivan v. The Univ. of Wash. (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2023)
Order granting a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, members of the University of Washington’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), sought a preliminary injunction to stop the University from releasing their appointment letters, which contained personal identifying information, to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) under Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA). In granting the preliminary injunction based on this Second Amended Complaint, the court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that disclosure would abridge state and federal constitutional rights of personal security and bodily integrity, and information privacy. It also found that plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the form of threats, harassment, or reprisal, and that the balance of hardships and public interest weighed in plaintiffs’ favor.
Topics:
Freedom of Information & Public Record Laws | Privacy & Transparency | ResearchDate:
Marshall v. State (Wash. App. May 2, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former tenure-track assistant professor at the University of Washington Tacoma, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she was denied promotion and tenure. Though plaintiff’s record of research funding and publication was strong, the University pointed to low student evaluations in some of her courses to defer her reappointment and then deny her application for promotion and tenure. The Court of Appeals of Washington reversed summary judgment on her discrimination claim, holding that inconsistencies between student evaluations and positive peer observations of her teaching, studies documenting racism on campus, comments suggesting racial animus by people involved in her review, and a lack of other efforts to retain her were sufficient to raise a material question as to whether the focus on student evaluations was pretextual. The court similarly reversed on her hostile work environment claim, finding that use of “coded language that could reflect racial animus” presented a material question as to harassment affecting the terms or conditions of her employment. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University on her retaliation claim, however, holding that she presented no evidence to suggest that adverse employment decisions were motivated by her reports of discrimination rather than the bias she alleged.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Retaliation | TenureDate:
McKinley v. Princeton Univ. (D. N.J. Apr. 28, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion grating Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former budget analyst at Princeton University who had been granted a religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after it denied her second request for a religious exemption to its masking, testing, and contract tracing policies and terminated her shortly thereafter. The court dismissed her religious discrimination claims for failure to identify a religious practice that prevented her from complying with the policies. It dismissed her retaliation claims, holding that because she had not alleged a sincerely held religious belief, she was unable to show that she had opposed an unlawful denial of a religious accommodation. Finally, it dismissed her Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) claim because she failed to show that saliva samples collected were used for any purpose other than COVID-19 testing.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Myrick v. Tex. State Tech. Coll. (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2023)
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee of Texas State Technical College, brought a Title IX retaliation claim against the College after she was terminated for violating the College’s Title IX policy. A male student had confided in her that a female employee had sent him an “odd” message inviting him to lunch and giving him her phone number. Plaintiff sought the guidance of a human resources official, hesitated initially to file a report, and then named the student only days later after she had been warned she was required to report his name. In permitting plaintiff’s claim to proceed, the court held that the College’s assertion that plaintiff had not engaged in Title IX protected activity is more properly addressed at the summary judgment stage.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. Apr. 27, 2023)
Opinion vacating and remanding for dismissal. Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods (SBN) challenged a plan by the University of California, Berkeley to construct new residential and academic space and to expand its enrollment, asserting that the University’s review of the plan’s environmental impact did not meet the requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The trial court granted a writ of mandate ordering the University to decertify its Supplemental Environmental Impact Review (SEIR), void the construction plan, and suspend further increases to enrollments, and the California Supreme Court declined to review or stay the writ. California then passed Senate Bill 118 shifting the focus of the CEQA from enrollment to campus population and limiting the remedies available if a court finds an impact review deficient. The Regents also certified a new Environmental Impact Review. On appeal, the California Court of Appeals held that Senate Bill 118 and the new EIR mooted SBN’s challenge.
Topics:
Construction Projects & Contracts | ContractsDate:
Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ. (Cal. App. Apr. 27, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff is a former tenured professor at Santa Clara University (SCU) who was terminated after a faculty judicial board (FJB) determined he sexually harassed a former teaching assistant, Jane Doe. He sought mandamus and injunctive relief and damages against SCU and brought defamation claims against both SCU and Doe. The California Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the writ of mandate, finding that although the Faculty Handbook was unclear about procedures for student-teacher sexual harassment cases, plaintiff received a fair hearing, and his termination was supported by substantial evidence. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of SCU on his wrongful termination and contract claims, finding no evidence supporting his claim of discrimination and no procedural irregularities sufficient to show breach of contract. Turning to his defamation claims, the court held that Doe’s complaint, the investigation, and an independent investigator’s report are all subject to the litigation privilege for quasi-judicial proceedings. It reversed summary judgment, however, as to statements Doe made to a witness prior to her complaint, which plaintiff testified were fabrications. This, the court held, created a triable question as to whether (1) Doe knew the statements were false and (2) the common-interest privilege she asserted over them was negated by malice.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Sex Discrimination | Tort LitigationDate:
Bueno v. Univ. of Miami (S.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2023)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Miami, sued the University, alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by not correcting the amount of his outstanding student loan debt with two credit bureaus after it allegedly promised to absolve his loan balance. Plaintiff’s complaint failed, first, because he had alleged the existence of a legal dispute rather than a factual inaccuracy. Plaintiff also failed to allege that the University, rather than a third-party servicer, qualified as the relevant “furnisher of information” under the FCRA.
Topics:
Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | StudentsDate:
U.S. Dep.’t of Education Notice Seeking No-Cost Extension for HEERF Funds (May 1, 2023)
U.S. Department of Education Notice Seeking No-Cost Extension for Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Funds. The project period for most HEERF grants will end on June 30, 2023, and any unliquidated funds must be returned to the U.S. Treasury. With this Notice of Information Collection Request, the Department invites public comment on its proposed process to permit HEERF grantees to request extension of the project period beyond June 30, 2023, if they “have a thought-out plan for using their remaining HEERF grant funds to address the lingering effects and impacts related to COVID-19.” Though ED sought emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by May 3, 2023, interested persons may submit comments on or before June 30, 2023.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus
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.