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:
Arkansas v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (E.D. Mo. July 24, 2024)
Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, as well as A.F., a minor resident of Arkansas, challenged the Department’s new Final Rule on Title IX and sought preliminary injunction, asserting that it is contrary to law, exceeds the Department’s statutory authority, and is arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs assert that the Rule is inconsistent with the meaning of “sex” in Title IX, impermissibly expands the standard for harassment beyond the controlling precedent in Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (1999), and impermissibly expands the definition of sex-based harassment to include “discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” In granting the injunction, the court found plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that (1) it exceeds the meaning of Title IX to define discrimination on the basis of gender identity as a form of sex discrimination; (2) the Department’s new “severe or pervasive” standard for harassment for administrative enforcement cannot be squared with the “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” standard the Supreme Court adopted for private actions under Title IX in Davis; and (3) the Department’s “interpretation of sex in combination with its definition of sexual harassment” may unconstitutionally chill speech in areas such as the use of pronouns. The injunction prohibits defendants from enforcing the Final Rule with respect to schools affected by the order.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Yodice v. Touro Coll. & Univ. Sys. (2nd Cir. July 19, 2024) (unpub.)
Summary Order partially affirming dismissal, partially vacating, and remanding. Plaintiff, a graduate student at Touro College and University System’s College of Dental Medicine during Spring 2020, on behalf of himself and a putative class, brought contract, unjust enrichment, and deceptive practices and false advertising claims against the University related to tuition and fees after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. The district court dismissed the claims. In reversing on plaintiff’s tuition claims, the panel of the Second Circuit held that because his claims were similar to the claims in Rynasko v. New York Univ. (2nd Cir. 2023), in which another panel of the court “outlined criteria to evaluate the sufficiency of allegations of breach of an implied contract under New York law between a student and university for in-person instruction and services,” plaintiff had plausibly stated an implied contract claim. Because dismissal of the deceptive practices and false advertising claim was based on the analysis of the contract claim, the court vacated and remanded on that claim as well. The court affirmed dismissal of the implied contract claim as to fees for lack of allegations as to what services the University owed plaintiff. It affirmed dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the contract claim.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | CoronavirusDate:
Beuca v. Wash. State Univ. (9th Cir. July 18, 2024) (unpub.)
Memorandum reversing dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff, a former medical student employed by Washington State University and completing a residency at Providence Regional Medical Center, brought discrimination claims against the University after it declined to grant him a religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination requirement and terminated him, even though the Center had granted the exemption. In dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, the district court held that (1) plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory because he alleged no facts as to the nature of his sincerely held religious belief or when or how he had requested the exemption from the University and (2) the University successfully asserted undue hardship because permitting plaintiff to work in a hospital without a vaccination posed an increased risk to patients of COVID-19 exposure. After the case was dismissed, the Supreme Court decided Groff v. DeJoy, holding “that showing ‘more than a de minimis coast,’ as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII.” In reversing dismissal with prejudice, the Ninth Circuit held, “[o]n this record at this stage, we cannot take into account ‘all relevant factors’ as Groff requires, and, therefore, cannot rule as a matter of law that Beuca’s request constituted an undue hardship.”
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
U.S. Dep’t of Education Guidance Pointers for Implementation of Title IX Regulations (July 24, 2024)
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Guidance 2024 Title IX Regulations: Pointers for Implementation – July 2024. The document contains a list of “key components of the 2024 Title IX Regulations” for schools to consider in anticipation of the regulations taking effect on August 1, 2024. The document also contains a header noting the effect of federal court orders enjoining the Department from enforcing the 2024 Final Rule.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Kansas v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (D. Kan. July 19, 2024)
Memorandum and Order denying Defendants’ Motion for Partial Stay. Plaintiffs, the states of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, three organizations with student members in the plaintiff states and beyond, and one female middle school student from Oklahoma, sought to enjoin the Title IX Final Rule, alleging that the Department impermissibly defined “sex discrimination” to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court enjoined the entire rule as to the plaintiff States, the individual plaintiff, and all schools attended by individual members of the plaintiff organizations or their minor children. On July 15, 2024, the court released a 26-page Notice of List of Colleges & Universities by Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United listing institutions that are now subject to the injunction, including hundreds in states where the final regulations are not otherwise enjoined. Defendants moved for partial stay to limit the scope of the injunction to the members of the organizations as of the date the injunction was entered and to apply only to certain provisions concerning discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In denying the motion, though the court originally “did not specifically identify whether it applied to prospective members of the Plaintiff Organization,” it concluded “that all of the Plaintiff Organizations’ members, current and prospective, are entitled to the relief ordered.” It noted that “[s]upplements to the original notice may be appropriate as the case progresses.” In declining to limit the injunction only to the provisions regarding gender identity, the court cited Defendants’ interlocutory appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
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.