Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    Bhattacharya v. Murray (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2024)

    Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiff, a former medical student at the University of Virginia who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychosis, brought First Amendment retaliation and due process claims against the University after he was suspended for failures of professionalism and then issued a four-year no trespass order (NTO) for online harassment and threats against faculty members. In Fall 2018, a faculty member submitted a Professionalism Concern Card regarding a series of questions plaintiff posed to an American Medical Women’s Association panel on microaggressions. Plaintiff was then involuntarily hospitalized, first, for concerning behavior on the afternoon he received notice of the professionalism concern and, two days later, for threatening behavior directed against his mother. Subsequently, he posted pictures of members of the school’s Academic Standards and Achievement Committee online along with harassing messages. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit found that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to his confrontational and threatening behavior, rather than his protected academic speech on microaggressions, as the basis of his suspension and disqualification as a medical student. The court also affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s due process claims, noting that professionalism is an academic rather than disciplinary standard for the medical school and that plaintiff himself did not timely appeal the NTO.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Due Process | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Gimby v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ. Sch. of Dentistry (D. Or. Feb. 25, 2024)

    Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at the Oregon Health and Science University who worked in clinical rotations in Summer 2021, brought a discrimination claim under Title VII against the University after it denied her request for a religious exemption to the University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In granting the University’s motion to dismiss, the court found that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts that she was employee to whom the protections of Title VII are applicable since she neither received a substantial benefit from her alleged “employment” as a nursing student nor had otherwise established agency under the common law test, though it found these pleading defects could be cured and granted plaintiff leave to amend. Turning to her request for a religious exemption, the court found that plaintiff’s assertions that her “faith and trust that God knows the direction that my journey is supposed to take” and that she “cannot receive vaccines as they unnaturally interrupt my journey in this natural world as set up by God” were sufficient to state a bona fide religious belief conflicting with an employment duty, insofar as she might establish an employment relationship through an amended pleading.   

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Religious Discrimination & Accommodation

  • Date:

    Abreu v. Howard Univ. (D.C. Cir. Feb. 23, 2024)

    Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. Plaintiff, a former medical student at Howard University with ADHD and situational phobia related to test-taking anxiety, brought disability discrimination and contract claims against the University after it dismissed him from its medical school for repeatedly failing a required examination. The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim, noting that it had subsequently decided in Stafford v. George Washington University that the three-year statute of limitations for personal injuries under D.C. law, rather than a one-year limit, applied to claims under Title VI, in which Congress was similarly silent as to a limitations period. It affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s contract claim, noting that (1) references to compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA in the University’s Policies and Procedures Manual were insufficient to obligate the University to do something that was not already otherwise required, and (2) plaintiff had not been expelled prematurely under the terms of the medical school’s Policies & Procedures Manual.   

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

  • Date:

    Tennessee v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletics Ass’n (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 23, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the State of Tennessee and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as parens patriae on behalf of their student-athletes, brought antitrust claims against the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), asserting that the NCAA’s classification of name, image, and likeness (NIL) collectives as “boosters” that are prohibited from engaging in recruiting activities on behalf of a school, including discussions of potential NIL deals with student-athletes before they commit to a particular school, is “an ‘illegal agreement to restrain and suppress competition’ within the labor market of Division I athletics.” In preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the NCAA rules regarding the “NIL-recruiting ban” and Rule of Restitution, the court ruled that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, finding that (1) the balance between academics and athletics and the distinction between collegiate and professional athletics could be achieved by less restrictive rules, (2) the ban is anticompetitive for student-athletes even if it spreads competition evenly among member institutions, and (3) the social justification of protecting vulnerable students was not relevant to whether the rules are lawful. In finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged irreparable harm, the court noted that the alleged harms of stripping student-athletes of some of their negotiating leverage and keeping them from knowing their full NIL value are not strictly monetary.   

    Topics:

    Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Taxes & Finances

  • Date:

    Camden v. Bucknell Univ. (M.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2024)

    Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Bucknell University during 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 permitting her contract claim to proceed, the court found that although the Governor’s order closing all non-life-sustaining businesses made provision of on-campus instruction impossible, plaintiff had sufficiently alleged she was not given a meaningful opportunity to reject the modification of the implied contract for on-campus instruction. It permitted her unjust enrichment claim to proceed, finding she had sufficiently alleged that the University “retained considerable cost savings … by transitioning to remote learning.” The court then directed the parties to conduct targeted jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 as required for it to retain subject matter jurisdiction over the putative class action.   

    Topics:

    Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus

  • Date:

    Niman v. Mont. Univ. Sys. (D. Mont. Feb. 23, 2024)

    Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, current and former students in professional degree programs at the University of Montana who were classified as nonresidents for tuition and fees at the time of their enrollment, brought due process and equal protection challenges to several features of the University’s residency policy, alleging that they were unconstitutionally denied reclassification to in-state residency status. The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed, first, on their facial challenge to a provision that denies reclassification to professional degree students who cannot show that they were residents for at least 12 consecutive months for a purpose other than postsecondary education prior to their first semester of the professional degree program. Next, the court permitted plaintiffs to proceed in their as applied, but not their facial challenge to the policy’s general but rebuttable presumption that students enrolled in at least half of a full-time credit load cannot establish residency on the grounds that the policy provides students in professional degree programs fewer bases for rebutting that presumption. Finally, the court also permitted plaintiffs to proceed on their challenges to the policy’s requirement that a student wait 12 months before seeking reclassification and demonstrate less than 50% dependence on out-of-state sources of income and financial support, as well as on their claim that the policy requires them to pay tuition at rates disproportionate to the funding provided by Montana taxpayers.   

    Topics:

    Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Equal Protection

  • Date:

    Doe v. Brandeis Univ. (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2024)

    Memorandum & Order granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Brandeis University, brought gender and disability discrimination, contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against the University, its Title IX Coordinator, and the investigator assigned to his case, after he was investigated for alleged dating violence. The court granted the University’s partial motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligence claims, noting that his claims sound in contract rather than tort. The court also denied plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add negligent supervision and defamation claims, finding that (1) he offered no specific facts to support his assertion of negligent training or supervision, and (2) statements in the investigative report to which he objected were the investigator’s opinion and cannot support a defamation claim.   

    Topics:

    Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct | Tort Litigation

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep.’t of Educ. DCL on Use of Federal Work-Study Funds for Voter Registration (Feb. 26, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on Use of Federal Work-Study (FWS) Funds for Voter Registration. In this DCL, the Department clarifies that FWS funds may be used to support “civic engagement work that is not associated with a particular interest or group.” It specifies that “[t]his work can include supporting broad-based get-out-the-vote activities, voter registration, providing voter assistance at a polling place or through a voter hotline, or serving as a poll worker,” explaining that this work is consistent with the meaning of 34 CFR §675.22(b)(5), to promote student employment “in the public interest while ensuring that such work is neither associated with any faction in election for public or party office, nor constitutes political activity.” The Department also released a related Toolkit for Promotion of Voter Participation for Students, which highlights multiple recommendations for institutions to meet their obligation under the Higher Education Act to make a good faith effort to distribute voter registration forms and otherwise make resources available to every eligible student.   

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Higher Education Act (HEA) | Students

  • Date:

    U.S. Dep.’t of Educ. New Resources on Students with Disabilities (Feb. 20, 2024)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) New Resources on Students with Disabilities. In a press release, OCR announced four new resources with information for students and institutions to understand their respective rights and obligations regarding common medical conditions that can be disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The four conditions include asthma, diabetes, food allergies, and GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease). The Department also highlighted a compilation of Fast Facts on Students with Disabilities compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics addressing the number of students in postsecondary education who have a disabling condition.   

    Topics:

    Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

  • Date:

    NACUBO On Your Side (Feb. 26, 2024)

    Summary from the National Association of College & University Business Officers on legislative and regulatory actions that occurred from February 13-26, 2024. This summary highlights the Department of Education’s new resources to inform students with disabilities of their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act related to the common medical conditions of asthma, diabetes, food allergies, and gastroesophageal reflux disease; ED’s new FAFSA Workaround for contributors, such as parents, who do not have a Social Security number; new research from the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) showing that philanthropic giving to higher education institutions exceeded $58 billion for 2023; and NACUBO’s comments along with the American Council on Education (ACE) and other higher education associations to the Department of Labor (DOL) on its Request for Information on including new occupations, particularly in STEM areas, to Schedule A of the permanent labor certification process.   

    Topics:

    Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act

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