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:
U.S. Dept. of Education, Office for Civil Rights Annual Report (Dec. 20, 2024)
Annual Report of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for fiscal year 2024. The Report detailed an 18% increase in complaints received over FY 2023, which is the highest number per annum. It recounted OCR’s publication of a record-high of 23 policy resources addressing race and national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and disability rights, and its 36% increase in case resolutions. Finally, the Report summarized data on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Civil Rights Data from the 2020-21 school year, and issuance of the 2024 Title IX Final Rule.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Discrimination, Accommodation, & DiversityDate:
Colorado State Univ. System v. The Mountain West Conference (Denver Dist. Ct. Dec. 16, 2024)
Complaint requesting judicial determination, declaration, and preliminary and permanent injunctions. Plaintiffs, the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System, and Utah State University, brought claims against the Mountain West Conference (the Conference) alleging the Conference willfully breached its Bylaws and is attempting to force plaintiffs each to pay tens of millions of dollars in unlawful penalties, if plaintiffs choose to resign their membership in the conference to join the Pac-12 Conference in 2026, at the conclusion of their current media rights agreement. Plaintiffs contend the Conference has held clandestine meetings of its Board of Directors without providing sufficient notice under its Bylaws and Colorado law; conducted business at said meeting without required quorum; prematurely stripped plaintiffs and other Conference member schools of their rights to have a representative on the board; secretly amended Bylaws the day after plaintiffs and other member schools announced their intention to join the Pac-12; seek to require plaintiffs and other members to pay unnecessary “exit fees” as a penalty for resigning from the Conference; threatened to withhold tens of millions of dollars due to plaintiffs’ resignation and refused to reimburse plaintiffs for previously agreed upon expenses; entered into unauthorized side deals to enrich certain Conference members at the expense of plaintiffs; and refused to provide members with access to Conference books and recordings. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination and declaration that the exit fees be deemed an unenforceable penalty and be found void on public policy grounds; a judicial declaration that plaintiffs maintain their seats on the Conference Board and any committees until their respective resignation dates pursuant to Conference Bylaws; a judicial determination that the new Bylaws are invalid and void; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to preclude the Conference from calling any meetings of the Board without proper notice, from withholding any payment or distributions due to plaintiffs, and against the Conference’s enforcement of the exit penalty.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Athletics OperationsDate:
Vanderbilt Univ. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction in part, granting Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve in part, and denying Defendant’s Motion to Suspend and Motion to Reconsider. Plaintiff, Vanderbilt University, brought claims against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as well as the Board’s director and regional director challenging the applications of the NLRB’s new regulations. A graduate student organizing campaign commenced at the University, where the group filed a petition with the NLRB seeking to represent 2,200 graduate students. NLRB regulations required the University to submit a position statement that included a list of the full names, work locations, shifts, and job classifications of all individuals in the proposed unit. It also asserted that insofar as the position statement omitted any of the required information, the University would be precluded from raising any issue, offering any evidence, cross-examining witnesses, or presenting any argument relating to the omitted information at the hearing. The University contends it could not provide the required information to the NLRB unless students consented in writing, or, if a FERPA exception applied, and therefore the University sought an injunction so it would not be forced to disclose protected student information. In its motion for preliminary relief, the University asked the court to require the NLRB to adopt FERPA-compliance procedures and to preserve the University’s right to fully defend and participate in the Board’s proceedings regarding the election petition. In this case of first impression, the court granted the University’s request for preliminary relief regarding the conflicting regulations, but only insofar as NLRB compliance might violate the APA or FERPA and denied the motion in all other respect, reasoning that the University adequately alleged a real, immediate, and direct risk of violating FERPA, “as it will be forced to decide whether to violate FERPA or the [r]egulations once an election is ordered and [plaintiff] is ordered to disclose FERPA-protected student information in a voter list.” Finally, the court granted the NLRB’s motion to dissolve to the extent the University seeks direct review of the Board’s preclusion decision and enforcement of the subpoena, and denied the motion as moot in all other respects, as well as denying the NLRB’s motions to suspend and to reconsider as moot.
Topics:
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | Privacy & TransparencyDate:
The Pa. State Univ. v. Vintage Brand, LLC (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2024)
Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff, a public state institution, brought trademark infringement claims against Vintage Brand LLC (Vintage) over the use of the University’s marks on Vintage’s apparel; a litigation matter that has been ongoing for over three years. In addition to Vintage’s website, the company uses Sportswear, another defendant, as a manufacturer for their products. Following a multi-day jury trial on the matter, Sportswear moved for a judgment as a matter of law regarding a direct trademark infringement claim. The court initially granted the motion, reasoning that at the time, it was understood Sportswear was a manufacturer of the products and thus had no role in designing, marketing, or selling the products. While it may have been liable under a contributory infringement theory, the court previously held it was not liable for direct trademark infringement. The University disputed this conclusion and contended that Sportswear’s distribution of goods infringes its marks and should be held liable for direct trademark infringement, regardless of their manufacturer status. In granting the University’s motion for reconsideration, the court found that regardless of whether a defendant’s manufacture or shipment of goods featuring a protected mark could support direct trademark infringement in isolation, a reasonable juror could find that they can do so together (emphasis added). Specifically, the court determined that contributing to design, or manufacturing and affixing a label displaying the mark, or manufacturing and affixing the label along with shipping the goods, suffices to show a use in commerce that misleads consumers, therefore fulfilling the third prong of trademark infringement. While acknowledging that it is unclear whether or when mere manufacturers or distributors can be liable for direct infringement, the court noted that in this unique circumstances where Sportswear manufactures the goods, affixes the marks, and ships them directly to customers, their commercial use of the mark is in direct connection with its distribution of the infringed goods through shipping them to customers, “Sportswear’s use of the marking manufacturing may be likely to cause consumer confusion such that it can be liable for direct infringement.”
Topics:
Intellectual Property | TrademarksDate:
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security (DHS) Finalized H-1B Visa Rule (Dec. 18, 2024)
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finalized a rule on H-1B visas, allowing U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations, including international student graduates. Specifically, the rule will allow nonprofits where research is deemed as a fundamental activity to be exempt from the current H-1B caps. Additionally, the final rule codifies DHS’ current practice, allowing the agency to defer to a prior decision on status if it involves the same employer, employee, via classification and appointment, and extends employment authorization to F-1 students who have submitted an H-1B petition to avoid disruptions in their employment authorization.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Compliance Programs, Policies & Procedures | Immigration | International StudentsDate:
U.S. Dep’t of Education Approval for Continued Use of Tests with National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS) (Dec. 12, 2024)
The U.S. Department of Education announced that current approved tests with the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS), which were originally set to expire on February 5, 2025, may continue to be used in the NRS during a sunset period through June 30, 2035. Specifically, the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) reading GOALS series; forms 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, and 908 are all approved for continued use.
Topics:
Compliance & Risk Management | Compliance Programs, Policies & Procedures
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.