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:
Whipper v. Green (D. Conn. July 1, 2024)
Order denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, an inmate and student in the Wesleyan University Center for Prison Education (CPE) Program at Cheshire Correctional Institution, represented by court-appointed pro bono counsel, brought First Amendment retaliation claims against Department of Correction (DOC) officials and conspiracy to commit First Amendment retaliation claims against DOC officials and the University’s administrator for the CPE Program after he was removed from the program for refusing to sign a form related to rules of conduct for inmates. He alleged that the form was a way to implement “punitive practices against inmates in response to restrictions placed on DOC personnel by the passage of the Connecticut Protect Act” and that University volunteers disapproved of the requirement. Plaintiff also alleged that his transfer to a different facility for security concerns was pretextual to avoid a possible injunction. In permitting the First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed against the DOC defendants, the court found that (1) refusal to sign the form may be protected expressive activity and (2) plaintiff had also sufficiently alleged adverse actions and causal connection. In permitting the conspiracy claim to proceed against the University’s program administrator, it held that allegations that the administrator was aware of the plan to pressure inmates to sign the form and subsequently participated in removing plaintiff from the program were sufficient to allege that he had agreed to act in concert with the DOC Defendants, notwithstanding the University’s MOU granting the DOC unilateral authority to remove inmates from the program.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | First Amendment & Free Speech | RetaliationDate:
Stoffel v. The Regents of Univ. of Cal. (Cal. App. June 25, 2024) (unpub.)
Opinion vacating dismissal. Plaintiffs, students at various campuses of the University of California in Spring 2020, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought contract and related claims related to tuition and fees against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities in March 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege a “specific promise” of an in-person, on-campus education. In vacating dismissal, the California Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs’ assertions about statements in various marketing materials was sufficient to allege an implied promise of in-person, on-campus education over the expected duration of a full degree, which was affirmed each academic session. It then found that the relevant time for determining if the implied promise had been accepted was at the time in February 2020 when students registered and paid tuition for Spring 2020, rather than the deadline to withdraw and receive a refund. It also found that the Regents’ express reservation of rights to set tuition levels was not sufficient to give the Regents authority to change the terms of an implied contract retroactively.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | CoronavirusDate:
Koerner v. Mercer Univ. (M.D. Ga. June 21, 2024)
Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Mercer University in Spring 2020, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought contract and unjust enrichment claims against the University after it ceased in-person instruction and closed campus facilities due to the coronavirus pandemic. In dismissing plaintiff’s implied contract claim, the court found that the University catalog’s reservation of rights clause, which included the right “to change its rules affecting … the granting of credit or degrees,” together with its detailed emergency response plan, which provided for “academic or administrative space adjustments,” were sufficient to prevent the University from being held liable for the shift to remote instruction. It dismissed her unjust enrichment claim as precluded by her implied contract claim.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | CoronavirusDate:
OCR Resolution Agreement with Brown University re: Title VI Compliance (July 8, 2024)
Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Brown University of Rhode Island resolving a complaint that it responded inadequately to alleged harassment based on shared Jewish ancestry. The associated Resolution Letter noted (1) additional incidents of alleged harassment based on shared Palestinian, Arab, and/or Muslim ancestry and (2) that the University had “begun implementing changes to its Title VI organizational structures, reporting processes, and resources” in support of newly adopted “key priorities.” Through the Agreement, the University agreed to make additional updates to its policies and procedures; provide training to all employees and students; engage in detailed record keeping, review, and reporting on its responses to complaints; and engage in continued analysis and action pursuant to a climate assessment it had already begun.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Religious Discrimination & AccommodationDate:
U.S. Dep’t of Education Fact Sheet re: Harassment Based on Race, Color or National Origin (July 2, 2024)
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Fact Sheet on Harassment Based on Race, Color, or National Origin on School Campuses. Noting that “OCR’s enforcement activities have demonstrated that discriminatory harassment of students based on their race, color, or national origin continues to be a concern on school campuses,” the Fact Sheet describes prohibited harassment, including harassment that creates a hostile environment, under Title VI and outlines schools’ response obligations. The Fact Sheet provides several hypothetical examples of factual allegations OCR might investigate to determine whether a hostile environment exists and whether a school has responded adequately to such information, as well as a list of additional related resources.
Topics:
Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin DiscriminationDate:
ACE Letter to the State Department on Addressing Visa Processing Delays (July 5, 2024)
Letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) and 19 other organizations to the State Department on Addressing Visa Processing Delays. Noting that students from India have recently made up over a quarter of all international students in this country, the letter expresses concerns over delays in processing F-1 and J-1 visa applications at U.S. consulates in India. It notes, in particular, “reports of students receiving dates for interviews 100-200 days into the future, which will cause them to miss the start of their academic programs in the fall.”
Topics:
Immigration | International 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.