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:
Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2024)
Opinion and Order reversing the order denying the dismissal of Plaintiff A’s claims and affirming the judgment against Plaintiff B, after the Eleventh Circuit consolidated two appeals against the Board of Regents for the University System of Georgia, and the Georgia Tech Athletic Association to determine whether Title IX provides an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment. In the first case, Plaintiff A was a former art professor at Augusta University, whom multiple students complained had sexually harassed them. While an investigation was pending, Plaintiff A received a negative teaching evaluation. Then, he was suspended for one semester after the investigation found violation of the University’s sexual harassment policy. He appealed unsuccessfully, and while the appeal was pending Plaintiff A was allegedly reassigned to remedial tasks and then refused contract renewal, which led him to bring claims of retaliation and sex discrimination in employment under Title IX. In the second case, Plaintiff B was the former head women’s basketball coach for Georgia Tech, who raised complaints alleging funding disparities between the women and men’s basketball programs, including sending a letter to the institution’s president, which also alleged “differential treatment of her as a female coach.” At the same time, the university received complaints regarding Plaintiff B’s coaching techniques, including parent letters that alleged she and her staff created a “toxic” environment for the athletes. Although Plaintiff B denied that she created a “toxic” environment, an investigation corroborated the claims, and she was fired. Plaintiff B filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which she alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, sex discrimination under Title IX, and violation of the Georgia Whistleblower Act. After consolidating the appeals, the Eleventh Circuit found that Title IX does not provide a right of action for employees under Title VI, under a sex discrimination theory, and that neither plaintiff met their burden to sustain a claim for retaliation. Ultimately, the Circuit reasoned that “an implied right of action would impose unclear conditions or remedies for Spending Clause legislation, [and] we should not recognize that right.” Thus, the Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff A’s claim, considering he did not oppose an underlying violation; and affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff B’s claims under all theories, finding that she failed to tie her claims to her sex or to rebut the preferred nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Kammerer v. Univ. of Kan. (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former professor at the University of Kansas brought FMLA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the University and his former supervisors alleging they unlawfully interfered with his right to use his FMLA leave and discriminated and retaliated against him for using that leave. Plaintiff also claimed the University discriminated and retaliated against him because of his disability. Previously, plaintiff suffered a back injury that required accommodation. He agreed to change his work responsibilities per the suggestion of the Executive Associate Dean who was responsible for considering his request. Although plaintiff alleged he was assured that the change was not a new contract, he alleged that the University required him to accept a pay reduction of $19,000 as a condition of the accommodation. Later, he sought FMLA leave for needed surgery. Following his return to work, plaintiff alleged his supervisors declined him the opportunity to apply for a promotion and promoted another less-qualified employee. He further alleged he faced a course load that was three times the load of his colleagues and was refused additional compensation for that higher course load. Finally, he claimed that he was prohibited from inviting guest speakers or being awarded monetary grants. After filing a conciliation notice with the University, he was placed on administrative leave until his contract expired and then, notified that his contract would not be renewed. The court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FMLA claims as they were brought against his supervisors in their individual capacities, and as such, they are not “employers” governed by FMLA, declining to follow the rule of the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits. In permitting plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claims to proceed, the court reasoned that plaintiff alleged several injuries that would support an award of economic damages, even though they may not arise from breach of contract, per se.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | RetaliationDate:
The Louis D. Brandeis Ctr. for Human Rights Under Law v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, the Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., a Jewish legal advocacy non-profit, and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, (JAFE) brought a putative class action against Harvard College alleging it allowed Jewish and Israeli students to be “subjected to cruel antisemitic bullying, harassment, and discrimination.” Plaintiffs brought claims of direct discrimination; hostile educational environment; and retaliation under Title VI, and allege numerous examples of purportedly Antisemitic behavior, including that a professor required students to abandon a project based on their Israeli and Jewish identity and compared their use of the words “Jewish State” to advocating for America to become a country of “White supremacy.” An external investigation found the professor’s treatment of plaintiffs “ran counter to the College’s free speech and anti-bias policies, and that the professor created a hostile learning environment and subjected students to bias. Following this finding, plaintiffs claim the College failed to take remedial action. Plaintiffs further allege that this differed from when pro-Palestinian protestors shoved a keffiyeh in a Jewish student’s face while he was filming a protest and told him to “get out” and that after he refused other protestors joined in and pushed him, resulting in criminal charges for assault and battery. In that instance, plaintiffs claim the College declined to take further action citing the charged criminal action, choosing to rely upon the criminal charges as sufficient. Finally, a JAFE member allegedly emailed the College seeking help getting to her lab due to fear of protesters who they claimed were “celebrating the terrorist attack and referring to it as an act of ‘justified resistance.’” but received no response from the College, and when she tried to file a formal complaint, it would not let her proceed anonymously so she dropped her complaint in fear. The court dismissed the direct discrimination claim, finding plaintiffs failed to sufficiently establish evidence beyond a reasonable inference of bias that the College treated non-Jewish and non-Israeli comparators similarly. In allowing plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim to proceed, the court was persuaded by the allegation that the College failed to commence an investigation for a prolonged period of several months. The court dismissed the retaliation claims absent allegations that the College took any material adverse action against plaintiffs.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
Hight v. Univ. of Chi. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2024)
Memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former medical student at the University of Chicago brought disability discrimination claims against the University alleging violations of the ADA and refusal to accommodate under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He also brought claims for breach of tuition contract under Illinois law. Plaintiff had multiple disabilities that were recognized by the University for which he received reasonable accommodations, such as extra time and breaks when he took exams. During the program, he took a one-year medical leave following a professionalism concern report due to his absences and being placed on academic probation. Upon his return, he was moved from academic probation to monitored academic status and remained on that status until he was dismissed from the program. Prior to his dismissal, plaintiff alleged he began taking a new medication that inhibited his ability to control his actions, which included creating an email account under the name of another student and using the account to send evaluations and feedback to one of his professors. In response, a disciplinary proceeding was conducted that dismissed plaintiff for (1) repeated unprofessional behavior; (2) the egregious nature of the final professionalism complaint; (3) unprofessional behavior while on monitored academic status; and (4) significant and sustained academic performance deficiencies. Plaintiff appealed the decision in a timely manner, but allegedly was not given the ten-day response time outlined in the University’s policy. Plaintiff claimed that the incidents leading to his dismissal resulted from or were exacerbated by his disability and that there was no evidence supporting a finding of academic problems following his return from his leave of absence. In finding that plaintiff plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title III of the ADA, the court found (1) there was no dispute as to whether plaintiff had a disability as he was already receiving accommodations; (2) plaintiff sufficiently alleged he is able to complete his studies and comply with the requirements of the program with reasonable accommodations through his move from academic probation to monitored academic status; and (3) the events that the University characterized as “unprofessional conduct” leading to his dismissal, could be traceable to his disability and might have been accommodated. However, the court found that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead all three elements of a refusal to accommodate claim under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act and dismissed the claims, without prejudice. Further, the court dismissed part of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim because Illinois law does not recognize a contractual obligation arising from a party’s preexisting legal obligations. However, the court held that plaintiff did plead sufficient facts to establish an implied contract through the procedural protections articulated in the University’s guidelines regarding disciplinary proceedings, specifically how the University did not abide by the ten-day appeal timeline.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | 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.