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:
State of Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting Summary Judgment and Vacating Final Rule. Plaintiffs, the State of Texas and a coalition of trade associations and employers, contend the 2024 Rule changes to salary level for Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Exemption set by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) exceed the Department’s authority under the FLSA. In granting summary judgment, the court found that “the 2024 Rule exceeds the Department’s authority and is unlawful,” and also ruled the DOL’s “salary only” test reflected a return to the 2016 Rule which was found to be in tension with the FLSA and was overruled. The court reasoned that the Rule’s proposed salary increase from $43,888 to $58,656 annually beginning January 1, 2025, departed from the established metric, and would result in an additional three million workers becoming nonexempt. The court was also persuaded by plaintiffs’ claim that the 2024 rule was an unlawful exercise of agency power under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and thus, concluded that the Rule exceeded permissible construction of 213(a)(1), “effectively eliminat[ing] consideration of whether an employee performs bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity duties in favor of what amounts to a salary-only test.” The court further found that the Department exceeded its scope regarding the proposed automatic indexing mechanism, writing “nothing in the EAP Exemption authorizes the Department to set its rulemaking on autopilot and evade the procedural requirements of the APA,” and that “automatically increasing the minimum salary thresholds every three years also violates the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.” Keep an eye on your in-box for upcoming NACUA programming on this developing issue!
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of EmployeesDate:
Finnegan v. Mass. Coll. of Pharm. & Health Scis. (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2024)
Memorandum and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS or the College) brought discrimination claims alleging violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the American with Disabilities Act, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, and denial of basic fairness following his dismissal from the College’s pharmaceutical graduate program. Plaintiff took a leave of absence following a hospitalization and diagnosis of chronic migraines. Plaintiff alleged the dean assured him that he (1) would not be penalized for his condition, (2) could retake any missed classes the following semester, and (3) would be permitted extra time on additional days for test taking. Plaintiff further alleged that the dean assured him that sorting his logistics with the University regarding the foregoing would be taken care of on his behalf. Plaintiff alleged that despite these assurances, the dean did not report that plaintiff took a leave of absence and as a result, plaintiff received failing grades in all of his classes instead of withdrawals for the fall 2021 semester, which resulted in plaintiff’s dismissal from the College based on poor academic performance, which was in error. In allowing plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims to proceed, the court found that plaintiff demonstrated he could satisfy programmatic requirements with proper accommodations, had they been provided, writing, “Because [plaintiff] has alleged that he would be granted additional time on examinations which did not occur and provided a medical letter stating his need for aid, [] he has alleged sufficient facts that he requested an accommodation that was not provided.” The court dismissed claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices, finding that in addition to failing to serve the required demand letter, plaintiff misconstrued the meaning of the term “trade or commerce.” It also dismissed the breach of contract claim since the College’s handbook expressly stated that it “is not intended and cannot be construed as a contract or guaranty of any kind, express or implied, and the University may change, delete, or add to these guidelines unilaterally in its sole discretion and without notice.” Finally, it dismissed remaining claims alleging the denial of basic fairness, since plaintiff failed to adequately allege the College acted arbitrarily or capriciously in conducting his dismissal and further failed to point to any policy requiring a formal hearing prior to the dismissal.
Topics:
Academic Performance and Misconduct | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | StudentsDate:
Kansas v. U.S. Dep’t of Ed. (D. Kan. Nov. 12, 2024)
Notice of supplemental list of schools attended by plaintiffs. This notice of additional schools follows plaintiffs’ pending challenge to the 2024 Title IX Final Rule from the U.S. Department of Education, which they claim impermissibly defined “sex discrimination” to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The enumerated institutions, which are attended by members or children of members of plaintiff organizations Young America Foundation and Moms for Liberty, span the P-20 spectrum and addend the ongoing preliminary injunction against implementation of the Rule including in the prior 26-page Notice of List of Colleges & Universities by Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Agaj v. Bos. Coll. (D. Mass. Nov. 12, 2024)
Memorandum and order denying in part and granting in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former landscaper for Boston College brought Title VII claims of religious discrimination against the College following his termination after he refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Plaintiff also brought a myriad of other claims alleging the College discriminated against him as a “legal immigrant minority,” violated his privacy, made false representations, intended to deceive him, tried to make him resign under duress, and engaged in harassment, coercion, intimidation, discrimination, and retaliation on the basis of medical and sincerely held religious beliefs. During plaintiff’s time with the College, it required all students, faculty, and staff, to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 prior to participating in any on-campus activities related to the 2021-22 academic year, allowing exceptions for legitimate religious and medical reasons. Plaintiff submitted two requests for exemption, the first stating that receiving the vaccine would violate his religious beliefs, and that he did not feel safe having one, alleging it would have an adverse effect on his immune system. After that request was denied, plaintiff submitted a second request, stating he was a believer and descendant of the faith of Bogomils, and such religious faith forbade him from taking the vaccine. This request was also denied, and he was informed that failure to submit proof of vaccination would preclude him from entering campus. He was subsequently prohibited from accessing the College’s campus or his workspace and was terminated thereafter. The court found that plaintiff’s second request adequately notified the College that its vaccination requirement conflicted with his bona fide religious practice. Specifically, the court found that plaintiff’s request conveyed his sincere belief that (1) the vaccine would pose a risk to his health, (2) the vaccination requirements conflicted with a tenet of his faith, and (3) his faith required “adherents to abstain from action that would pose a risk to his health or spiritual wellbeing.” The court concluded that absent an exemption, plaintiff could not comply with the College’s vaccine requirement without either transgressing his religious beliefs or being terminated, which was sufficient at this stage to demonstrate that his religion could be the reason for his later termination. Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Hodge v. Spalding Univ. (W.D. Ky. Nov. 7, 2024)
Memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, former members of the women’s volleyball team at Spalding University brought claims of negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, willful and wanton disregard for player safety and well-being, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages alleging they experienced bullying from their teammates while on the volleyball team, and their coach contributed toward the bullying and retaliated against plaintiffs when they complained of the bullying. One plaintiff also brought claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs allege they were both kicked off the team following concerns for their mental health due to the alleged bullying from other members on the team. In finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims of negligence, the court found that based on the allegations that a coach (1) disclosed plaintiff’s confidential, personal information by sharing that she took time off for her mental health, and (2) forced the student to perform sprints despite her known hip injury, plausibly breached the duty of ordinary care. In allowing plaintiffs’ NIED claims to proceed, the court credited plaintiffs’ allegations that they experienced “emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish” from the claimed bullying by their teammates, which the coach purportedly disregarded. Based on its finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged gross negligence and NIED claims, the court determined that a jury could award punitive damages at a trial. However, the court dismissed the claims of negligent hiring and supervision finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the coach was unfit for the job at the time of hire or how her supervisors were aware of the alleged wrongdoing when it transpired. It also dismissed claims for willful and wanton disregard finding there was not an “entire absence of care” and that plaintiffs were unable to establish intentional, reckless, outrageous, or intolerable actions by the coach necessary to sustain a claim for IIED. Finally, the court allowed the single plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination and retaliation to proceed finding the coach’s alleged decision to prohibit the student from playing for an entire season after being informed of her mental health diagnosis constitutes a “denial of [plaintiff one’s] opportunity … to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of [the university]” on the basis of her diagnosed anxiety.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Retaliation | Student Athlete Issues | StudentsDate:
ACE Letter on Veteran Affairs Proposed Data Collection Related to the 35% Exemption from 85/15 Reporting Requirements (Nov. 12, 2024)
The American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) expressing strong concerns with the Department’s approach proposed in the VA Agency Information Collection Activity: 35% Exemption Request From 85/15 Reporting Requirement. The letter reviews how the proposed revision would create a new requirement that institutions compile, retain, and submit 85/15 data to the VA, regardless of whether the institution qualifies for the 35% exemption. In addition, the letter concludes that the proposed data collection is not allowed under law and must be amended to clarify that institutions qualifying for the 35% exemption are under no obligation to compile, retain, or submit 85/15 data to the VA.
Topics:
Faculty & Staff | Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
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.