Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Ostrowski v. Ind. Univ. (Ind. App. May 28, 2024)

    Memorandum Decision affirming denial of worker’s compensation benefits. Appellant, a former employee of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University who experienced atrial fibrillation and hip arthritis, filed a work injury claim and a federal Rehabilitation Act claim against the University after she found it too difficult to walk from the closest parking area to the campus building housing the Institute. After the parties settled the federal case, the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana affirmed the University’s denial of her work injury claim, finding that her symptoms did not constitute a compensable injury because they were “temporary and could have occurred anywhere.” In affirming the denial, the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that neither the Board’s factual conclusion that the walk on the hilly campus was routine and everyday, nor its legal conclusion that her symptoms were temporary and did not worsen her pre-existing medical conditions were clearly erroneous.  

    Topics:

    Accessible Facilities | Compliance & Risk Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Indemnity & Insurance

  • Date:

    Doe v. Univ. of Pa. (3rd Cir. May 24, 2024) (unpub.)

    Opinion affirming denial of anonymity. Plaintiff, who enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania in 2020, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University after she was suspended for a year and a half for academic dishonesty. She alleged that the professor who reported the misconduct had discriminated against her by grading her unfairly and denying her requests for extensions, and that the dishonesty investigation was in retaliation for her reporting the alleged discrimination. The district court denied her motion to proceed under a pseudonym. In affirming, the Third Circuit found plaintiff’s assertion that she might suffer embarrassment and economic harm by proceeding absent a pseudonym insufficient to allege a reasonable fear of severe harm.  

    Topics:

    Academic Performance and Misconduct | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students

  • Date:

    Cook v. Univ. of S. Cal. (Cal. App. May 24, 2024)

    Opinion affirming denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Southern California, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University alleging that she was harassed and constructively terminated after she reported discrimination and failure to accommodate health-related time-off requests. The University moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement executed as a condition of plaintiff’s employment. The trial court denied the motion, finding the agreement unconscionable. The California Court of Appeals affirmed, finding a “low degree of procedural unconscionability due to the adhesive nature of the agreement” and a high degree of substantive unconscionability. In finding substantive unconscionability, the court noted that (1) the scope of the agreement applied to all claims against the University, whether or not they were related to plaintiff’s employment; (2) the agreement was of unlimited duration and could be revoked only by a written document signed by the University’s president; and (3) the agreement unilaterally required plaintiff to arbitrate claims against all entities related to the University, though it did not require those entities to arbitrate claims against plaintiff. Noting that severance may be denied when there is more than one unconscionable provision, it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “finding that unconscionability permeated the arbitration agreement as a whole” and declining to sever the provisions.  

    Topics:

    Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

  • Date:

    ACE Issue Brief on FLSA Overtime Rule (May 31, 2024)

    American Council on Education (ACE) Issue Brief on the Department of Labor’s Final Rule on Overtime Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Issue Brief summarizes the Final Rule and its application in the higher education context, outlines strategies for optimizing compliance, and considers multiple questions regarding situations occurring frequently at institutions of higher education.  

    Topics:

    Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees

  • Date:

    CUPA-HR FAQs on FLSA Overtime Rule (May 29, 2024)

    Frequently Asked Questions from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) on the Department of Labor’s Final Rule on Overtime Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FAQs address application of the Final Rule to situations that may occur within institutions of higher education, including the teacher exemption, student or graduate student employment, part-time workers, and partial-year employment.  

    Topics:

    Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees

  • Date:

    Nelson v. St. Catherine Univ. (D. Minn. May 21, 2024)

    Order denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at St. Catherine University, brought Bankruptcy Code automatic stay violation and common law intrusion upon seclusion claims against both the University and its outside counsel (the Firm), and alleged that the Firm violated multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In May 2023, as a “Collection Action” brought by the Firm on behalf of the University was ramping up before a district “Collection Court,” plaintiff filed for bankruptcy before a federal “Bankruptcy Court.” Following the Bankruptcy Court issuing notice of the “Bankruptcy Matter” Plaintiff was arrested on a bench warrant from the Collection Court. Then, after plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Firm and University additional information and the Firm was added to the Bankruptcy Matter, the Firm did not notify plaintiff’s counsel of a rescheduled hearing in the Collection Action. Once plaintiff’s counsel notified the Collection Court of the Bankruptcy Matter, the Collection Action was stayed. Subsequently, Plaintiff initiated a tertiary civil action against the Firm and University related to these alleged actions. Upon finding no irreconcilable conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and the FDCPA that would repeal the FDCPA provisions by implication, the court found plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to proceed on her FDCPA improper communication, false or misleading representations, threat to take action, and unfair practices claims. Noting that the FDCPA claims were largely predicated on the same underlying facts, the court declined to refer the Bankruptcy Code violation claims to the Bankruptcy Court. It likewise retained jurisdiction over her tort claims. 

    Topics:

    Bankruptcy & Student Debt | External Counsel | General Counsel | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Taxes & Finances | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Weinik v. Temple Univ. (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former clinician at Temple University Hospital and clinical professor at the University’s School of Medicine, brought due process, contract, and defamation claims against the University and two former residents after he was terminated for alleged sexual and other misconduct. Following investigations of alleged inappropriate conduct with a resident and patients, the Hospital terminated his medical privileges. After alleged threatening behavior while his appeal was pending, the Hospital issued a Security Alert to security staff and potentially threatened individuals. When the appeal was denied, the University terminated his academic employment, and the Hospital notified the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) of the revocation of his privileges. In granting summary judgment to the defendants on his defamation claims, the court held that (1) statements made by a medical resident complainant in the Hospital’s peer review process were protected by quasi-judicial immunity, (2) other statements made in the context of this process were protected by statutory immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), (3) the security alert was conditionally privileged and no facts suggested it was disseminated with malice or negligence, and (4) there was a statutory duty to report the loss of privileges to the NPDB. It found that his contract claim was barred by HCQIA immunity and that the Hospital’s procedures satisfied the procedural requirements of the HCQIA and, accordingly, provided him with sufficient due process. 

    Topics:

    Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    Denham v. Ala. State Univ. (11th Cir. May 16, 2024) (unpub.)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, who is a white female and a former professor of Occupational Therapy at Alabama State University, brought discrimination claims against the University after she was not hired for an Associate Dean position. The position required qualifications appropriate for the rank of associate professor, and though the successful candidate had only one year of teaching experience, the provost deemed him qualified by virtue of his clinical experience. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University, the Eleventh Circuit found plaintiff’s assertion that she was more qualified for the position by virtue of her teaching experience insufficient to raise a question of pretext regarding the University’s explanation that it valued the successful candidate’s clinical experience and strong performance in his interview. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Sex Discrimination | Sex Discrimination in Employment

  • Date:

    DOJ NPRM on Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana (May 21, 2024)

    Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana. The NPRM proposes to transfer marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to schedule III. “If transferred into schedule III, the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA.” Comments are due on or before July 22, 2024. Consistent with the CSA’s requirement that rulemaking happen on the record after opportunity for a hearing, requests for a hearing are due on or before June 20, 2024. 

    Topics:

    Alcohol & Drug Policies & Abuse | Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep’t of Labor Guidance on AI and Worker Well-being (May 16, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Labor Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Worker Well-being: Principles and Best Practices for Developers and Employers. Pursuant to Executive Order 14110, “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,” the Department released Principles for AI “that apply to the development and deployment of AI systems in the workplace, and should be considered during the whole lifecycle of AI—from design to development, testing, training, deployment and use, oversight, and auditing.” 

    Topics:

    Faculty & Staff | Technology

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