Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Williams v. Coppin State Univ. (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former student athlete at Coppin State University, brought Title IX discrimination and retaliation, negligence, and IIED claims against the University following an episode in which an unidentified person contacted him through social media under the guise of developing a romantic relationship and he responded by sharing intimate images of himself, which the anonymous individual then threatened to redistribute. The blackmailer – who plaintiff believed to be an assistant coach on the basketball team – purportedly demanded that plaintiff engage in videotaped sex acts with the assistant coach, and after plaintiff refused to do so, the intimate images were published. Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment report and alleged that during the pendency of the investigation he was stripped of his scholarship and subjected to invasive questions. The court permitted the Title IX discrimination claim to proceed, finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged the head coach and athletic director knew the assistant coach “to be a sexual predator, and to previously have engaged in abusive behavior” and “acted with reckless and/or thoughtless disregard of the consequences to the rights of students on the basketball [] team.” The court allowed plaintiff’s IIED claims to continue based upon the same allegations and also found that he adequately pled a claim for Title IX retaliation based on the purported withdraw of his tuition and housing funding following his report and request for investigation. The negligence claims were dismissed based on state sovereign immunity. 

    Topics:

    Student Athlete Issues | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Crawford v. Bronx Cmty. Coll. (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 21, 2024)

    Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former office assistant at Bronx Community College of the City University of New York brought Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference and retaliation claims and claims of disability discrimination against the College after she took extended leave for a broken ankle. Plaintiff alleged she communicated to her superiors that she was unable to work and worked with the College’s HR department to apply for FMLA, however, she was informed that her absence from work was “unauthorized.” In denying the College’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim, the court found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged she was denied benefits to which she was entitled under the FMLA. Further, the court found that plaintiff made “diligent, good faith efforts” to timely submit her necessary FMLA forms. The court dismissed plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims because she was unable to demonstrate how a broken ankle qualified as a disability under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, and further, did not demonstrate her injury to be “sufficiently severe” to warrant protection. Finally, in denying the College’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff’s termination shortly after her request for FMLA leave was sufficient to support an inference of retaliatory intent.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Vernon v. The Trs. of Gaston Coll. (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2024)

    Order and Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss in three related cases. Plaintiffs, students at Gaston College in 2023, separately initiated a trio of putative class action cases against the College to recover based on its alleged failure to safeguard confidential personal information due to a data breach. In February 2023, the College reported a data breach that potentially compromised plaintiffs’ private information. Plaintiffs brought claims of (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied contract; and (3) unjust enrichment. The Court granted the College’s motions to dismiss claims for unjust enrichment as barred by sovereign immunity, but declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, finding a contract between the parties since plaintiffs paid the College in exchange for services, which allegedly included a promise to secure, safeguard, and not disclose plaintiffs’ personal identifying or private information. 

    Topics:

    Data Privacy | Privacy & Transparency

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep’t of Education Final Rule on NRC and FLAS Fellowship Programs (Aug. 27, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education Final Rule on National Resource Centers (NRC) Program and Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships Program. The new regulations provide clearer interpretations of statutory language, redesign selection criteria, and incorporate updates based on program management experience. The new regulations aim to improve the application process and align administrators of the programs with recent developments in modern foreign language and area studies education. The new regulations will go into effect on September 26, 2024 (instructions 8 and 9 eff. Aug. 15, 2025).  

    Topics:

    Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work | Students

  • Date:

    ACE Letter to the Dep.’t of Education on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Aug. 23, 2024)

    Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 24 other organizations to the U.S. Department of Education on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Program Integrity and Institutional Quality: Distance Education, return of Title IV (R2T4), HEA Funds, and Federal TRIO Programs. Noting various critiques regarding proposed revisions to distance education, the new definition of “additional location,” removal of asynchronous learning for distance ed under clock hour, and imposition of a requirement to monitor attendance in distance ed courses predicate to the return of Title IV funds. The letter highlights the benefits of distance learning and how the proposed regulations could be an administrative burden given the lack of tools and equipment from the Department as well as lead to an increase in data errors and hinder institutional innovation.  

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep’t of Ed. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S. ____ (2024).

    U.S. Supreme Court per curium denial of applications for stay in Department of Education v. Louisianna, No. 24A78 and Cardona v. Tennessee, No. 24A79. Multiple states filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) challenging the Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, on multiple grounds, including arguing that the Rule exceeds the four corners of the Congressionally implemented statutory text, and sought preliminary injunction. The U.S. Districts of Louisiana and Kentucky granted plaintiffs’ preliminary relief against enforcement of the Rule in the plaintiff states. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits declined to stay the respective injunctions. Subsequently, the Department made emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking partial stays of the PIs pending resolution of the appeals before the Circuits. The Supreme Court reasoned that plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief on a trio of provisions of the Rule regarding the scope of the definition of sex discrimination, which includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, rejected the Department’s request to sever those provisions and implement the remainder of the Rule, and thus, denied the emergency applications. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct

  • Date:

    Becker v. North Dakota University System (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).

    Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part. Plaintiffs, four non-students, brought Title IX claims challenging the University of North Dakota’s decision to discontinue its women’s hockey team after the 2017 season. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing absent allegations concrete injury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of two plaintiffs, confirming that Article III imposes limitations on when prospective students have standing to bring Title IX claims based on a university’s lack of an athletic team, including that they must sufficiently allege that they have both the requisite academic credentials for admission and the athletic skills to compete. The Circuit reversed and remanded two other plaintiffs’ claims reasoning that one putative student who alleged she was recruited to play hockey at the University, and another who was accepted to attend the University and a two-time state hockey champion but did not have the chance to try-out for the team, both adequately alleged a “definite intent to attend” the University and were “able and ready” to compete if women’s hockey were available.  

    Topics:

    Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics

  • Date:

    Carr, et, al. v. Tr. of Purdue Univ.; Tr. of Indiana Univ. (S.D. Ind. Aug. 14, 2024)

    Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, all tenured professors at Indiana public postsecondary institutions, sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Senate Enrolled Act 202 (SEA 202) against the Trustees of Purdue University, the Trustees of Indiana University (collectively “Boards”) and Intervenor, the State of Indiana. Plaintiffs alleged that SEA 202, which directs Boards to “adopt new policies aimed at ensuring that faculty members’ pedagogies align with the principles of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity” violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs assert that SEA 202 had a “chilling effect” on their employment because they “felt compelled to make changes to their syllabi” to abide by the policy and such efforts have been burdensome to university faculty members. Defendants argue “any injury that plaintiffs could potentially face would be attributable to the presently non-existent university polices, rather than to SEA 202 itself.” Because the court concluded Plaintiffs’ claims were “premature” requiring an “attenuated chain of inferences” and their injuries were “inchoate” due to the lack of institutional policies implementing SEA 202, it denied the request for preliminary injunction, granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed the case without prejudice noting that it “express[ed] no view as to the merits of the[] constitutional claims, which must await further factual development.”   

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Tenure

  • Date:

    Manco v. St. Joseph’s Univ. Et, al. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2024).

    Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former St. Joseph’s University professor sued the University and several students under multiple theories following termination his of employment. The University placed Plaintiff on administrative leave, investigated, and ultimately removed from his visiting faculty role for “violations of University policies” after screenshots of his anonymous tweets circulated online, were sent to the University’s Title IX Coordinator, and a student tweeted at the University “are you gonna fire [Plaintiff] who has done nothing but contribute to a hostile learning environment with his racism, sexism, and transphobia??????” Various defendant groups filed motions to dismiss, including the student who posted the tweet who argued that she was entitled to absolute privilege “as she conveyed information that commenced an investigation pursuant to federal statute or regulations.” The court declined to dismiss claims of defamation, false light, and tortious interference, reasoning that although the student’s emails and direct correspondence with the University during the pendency of the investigation were entitled to immunity, her “general tweet” towards a private institution lacked intent to commence an investigation. The court also found that her tweet was potentially defamatory as it may be read to imply that the professor is “a racist, sexist and/or is transphobic.” The Court granted the student’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation | Social Media

  • Date:

    Frankel, et, al. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., et, al. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024).

    Order granting-in-part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, Jewish students attending the University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) asserted multiple claims for violations of their federal and state constitutional rights including under the Free Exercise Clause after third-parties physically excluded them from portions of the UCLA campus “because they refused to denounce their faith.” The Court analyzed the factors attendant to the Free Exercise claim finding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim, as they were “exclu[ded] from campus resources while other students retained access.” It found that “given the risk that protests will return in the fall … Plaintiffs are likely to suffer an irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction.” Pursuant to the injunction, “if any part of UCLA’s ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas become unavailable to certain Jewish students, UCLA must stop providing those ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas to any students.” On August 14 Defendants filed a Preliminary Injunction Appeal. 

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | Students

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.

Register