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:
Saud v. DePaul Univ. (7th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025)
Opinion Affirming Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former adjunct professor at DePaul University, brought a racial discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981, after the university deemed him ineligible for future employment following a campus Title IX investigation found he had sexually harassed a student. The district court granted summary judgment for the university, finding that the plaintiff had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the university had discriminated against the plaintiff. The 7th circuit affirmed, holding that “[s]exual misconduct is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment action” and that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the university’s action was pretextual because he had failed to provide any evidence that the university did not “honestly believe[] it made the correct employment decision.”
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex DiscriminationDate:
ACE Letter to Department of Education on ACTS Survey Components (Oct. 7, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 37 other higher education associations sent a letter to the Department of Education expressing opposition to the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey component. The letter expresses concern that the new survey component will “result in unreliable and misleading data that is intended to be used against institutions of higher education.” ACE argues that the implementation timeline and new required data reporting are highly problematic, noting (1) institutions will have only 17 weeks to prepare the new required data, which totals nearly 70,000 reporting fields when expanded to cover the last 5 years of data (2) the likelihood of significant errors in the way that the data is reported and failure to provide an actual survey instrument as part of the proposal, and (3) the inclusion of “conflicting, nonexistent or noncomparable data elements.” ACE also notes other concerns including that the proposal was developed without following the appropriate process, will be enormously burdensome and will lead to inaccurate and erroneous conclusions. ACE concludes by urging the Department to reconsider its approach.
Topics:
Admissions | StudentsDate:
Weiss v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Mass. Oct. 6, 2025)
Opinion Affirming in Part and Reversing in Part. Appellants-Plaintiffs, close relatives of a group of deceased individuals who had donated their bodies to Harvard Medical School, brought tort, contract, and other claims against Harvard following the indictment of a former Harvard morgue employee for conspiring to steal and sell cadaver parts and a subsequent report from a panel of external experts identifying shortcomings in university protocols for handling donor remains. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, finding that plaintiffs had failed to counter the defendants’ assertion of an affirmative “good faith” defense under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA). However, on appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, finding that plaintiffs’ allegations amounted to “peculiarly pervasive noncompliance” with the UAGA warranting an inference that the university did not act in good faith. The court noted, in particular, the lack of sufficient controls and procedures at the morgue to prevent these harms from occurring, despite the university’s knowledge that “similar misconduct had previously occurred in a strikingly similar fashion in another medical school morgue,” and that several “red flags” about the morgue employee were also “ignored or tolerated.” The court concluded that the trial court had erred in granting the university’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Topics:
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort LitigationDate:
ACE Letter to Congress on Minority Serving Institution Funding (Oct. 3, 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 20 higher education associations sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting an increase in funding for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) for fiscal year 2026. The letter also urges Congress to reinstate funding that was cut during fiscal year 2025. The letter explains that the abrupt cut in funding will cause irreparable harm to hundreds of institutions and emphasizes the bipartisan support the funding has maintained for the last several decades.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
White House Letter on Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education (Oct. 1, 2025)
The White House sent a letter to nine universities along with a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” outlining the “priorities of the U.S. Government” in its engagements with universities. The letter suggests that by signing the Compact, the “Federal Government would have assurance that signatory institutions are complying with civil rights law and pursuing Federal priorities with vigor,” which would in turn “yield multiple positive benefits for the school, including allowance for increased overhead payments where feasible, substantial and meaningful federal grants, and other federal partnerships.” Among its many obligations, the Compact would require institutions to: (1) prohibit the considerations of factors “such as sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations, or proxies for any of those factors” — either “explicitly or implicitly” in any decision related to admissions or financial support; (2) commit to fostering a vibrant marketplace of ideas, while at the same time, “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, or even spark violence against conservative ideas”; (3) maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration; (4) commit to freezing tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years; (5) limit international undergraduate student enrollments to no more than 15 percent of the student population; and (6) commit “to defining” male and female according to “reproductive function and biological processes.” The Compact requires the President, Provost and Head of Admissions to certify the university’s compliance on an annual basis. Adherence to the agreement will also be subject to review by the Department of Justice, with universities found to have willfully or negligently violated the agreement subject to a loss of access to “the benefits of this agreement” and other penalties, which may include requiring the return of “all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation.” The letter offers the schools the opportunity to provide “limited, targeted feedback” on the Compact (which the authors note is “largely in final form”) by October 20, 2025, and announces the White House’s goal of having a signed agreement no later than November 21, 2025.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
American Association of University Professors, et al., v. Marco Rubio, et al., (D. Mass. Sep. 30, 2025)
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and several individual chapters and organizational plaintiffs, sued the federal government for violations of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the government’s actions against noncitizen students and faculty who participated in pro-Palestinian protests amounted to an “ideological-deportation policy” in violation of their rights. Following a two-week trial, the court issued a 161-page ruling, holding that that the administration’s actions were an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment and also arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. On plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, the court found that the government had “engaged in a mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech, and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated.” The court held that these actions were unconstitutional and noted “the effect of these targeted deportation[s] [] continues [] to chill freedom of speech to this day.” In considering relief for the plaintiffs, the court concluded that “it will not do simply to order the Public Officials to cease and desist in the future,” but also outlined a number of “concerns” and “constraints” that will govern the upcoming remedy hearing.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
ACE Letter to Congress on FY 2026 Appropriations and Funding Implementation (Sep. 30 2025)
The American Council on Education (ACE) along with 60 higher education associations sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting that they include clear legislative language in the final fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills mandating that the administration allocate funds as directed by Congress. The letter notes the need for increased stability, certainty, and transparency for colleges and universities about the availability of federal funding, particularly after the significant disruptions and terminations of funding in recent months.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | ResearchDate:
DCL Reminder Regarding Prohibited Use of Federal Grants Funds for Lobbying and Allowable Membership Costs (Sep. 30, 2025)
The Department of Education (the Department) published a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) reminding institutions of the legal restrictions on using federal grant funds for lobbying including that the use of federal grant funds for membership dues to professional or trade organizations, including national associations, remains strictly prohibited. The DCL notes that while 2 C.F.R. § 200.450(c) allows the use of federal funds for membership in business, technical, and professional organizations, “that allowance does not extend to organizations whose primary purpose is lobbying . . .[n]or does it allow payment of dues to any organization that fails to separate lobbying from non-lobbying costs.” The DCL further states that it is the responsibility of the grantee to ensure that any membership fee funds are not used for lobbying, even when the membership organization’s primary purpose is not lobbying. Grantees are also responsible for maintaining adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance and avoid payment of dues to organizations that do not report the proportion of their activities that are dedicated to lobbying. The DCL concludes by stating failure to comply may result in disallowed costs, audit findings, program reviews, and additional oversight or enforcement actions by the Department up to the termination of a grant.
Topics:
Contracts | Grants, Contracts, & Sponsored Research | Research
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.