New Cases and Developments

NACUA's Legal Resources staff summarizes current higher education cases and developments and provides the full text of selected cases to members. New cases and developments are archived here for up to 12 months.  Cases provided by Fastcase, Inc.

New Search
Sexual Misconduct – Employment; Sexual Misconduct & Other Campus Violence

Johnson v. Regents of the University of California (Cal. App. April 24, 2018)

Unpublished Opinion affirming the denial of Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate. Appellant, a former employee of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), challenged his termination for violations of UCSF’s Sexual Harassment Policy.  Plaintiff was found by UCSF to have engaged in a course of troubling behavior over a 2-year period, that centered around Plaintiff’s infatuation with a hospital employee named S.M. The court found no abuse of discretion by the administrative hearing officer who oversaw Appellant’s post-deprivation hearing, particularly because there was substantial evidence of “severe or persistent” conduct by Appellant that resulted in a hostile work environment—namely, over the course of two years, Appellant “asked S.M. out on a date, gave her unwanted cards and gift cards, stared or leered at her, over-assigned himself to her work areas, constantly appeared in areas of the hospital where she was working or taking a break, sent her emails and notes expressing his affection for her, took steps to buy a condominium in the development where she lived, persisted in this effort even after she yelled at him and told him to leave her alone, and asked coworkers to intercede on his behalf.” The court further found no abuse of discretion in UCSF’s decision to immediately terminate Appellant rather than pursue progressive disciplinary actions. Last, the court found that Appellant failed to show deprivation of a fair hearing or a prejudicial abuse of discretion in UCSF’s investigation of the matter.
Sexual Misconduct – Employment; Sexual Misconduct & Other Campus Violence; Sex Discrimination; Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

Uyar v. Seli and Yale University (D. Conn. March 31, 2018)

Memorandum of Decision granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant Yale University’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a Post-Doctoral Fellow and Post-Doctoral Associate who was romantically involved with Defendant Seli, a professor in the Yale School of Medicine, alleged under Title VII that Yale was vicariously liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Yale argued that Plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims could not proceed to a jury either because her romantic relationship with Seli was consensual or because  Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred or otherwise shielded by Yale’s affirmative defense under Faragher/Ellerth. The court found that there was a dispute of fact about whether the relationship was consensual, noting that Plaintiff attempted to end the relationship several times but was advised by Seli that doing so would mean that she would lose her position at Yale. Plaintiff also testified that she only referred to the relationship as “consensual” in a Yale Committee on Sexual Misconduct complaint due to her cultural understanding of the term as being limited to rape or physical force. The court also rejected Yale’s argument that Plaintiff’s claim was time-barred, instead finding that genuine issues of fact remained as to whether Seli’s conduct fit within the continuing violation exception to Title VII’s limitations period. Last, the court found that Yale could not assert an affirmative defense under Faragher/Ellerth because Plaintiff’s submission to Seli’s advances was a tangible employment action, and a reasonable jury could find Plaintiff’s decision not to take advantage of Yale’s anti-discrimination procedures and policies reasonable under the circumstances. 
Sexual Misconduct – Employment; Retaliation; Sexual Misconduct & Other Campus Violence

Bell v. Baruch College - CUNY (S.D.N.Y. March 9, 2018)

Opinion & Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former employee of Baruch College (BC) within City University of New York, alleged under Title VII and analogous state law that BC subjected him to a hostile work environment and retaliated against him after he made formal and informal complaints of sexual harassment based on three occasions where a fellow employee touched his bicep and shoulder blade. The court found that the alleged conduct was not objectively “severe or pervasive” to rise to the level of creating a hostile work environment. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, the court allowed Plaintiff’s retaliation claim to proceed after finding that an elapsed time of five months between Plaintiff’s complaint and Plaintiff’s termination was sufficient to establish a causal connection. Last, the court found that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Sexual Misconduct – Employment; Sex Discrimination; Sexual Misconduct & Other Campus Violence; Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

Slabisak v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Tyler (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2018)

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a medical resident at the University of Texas Health and Science Center at Tyler (UTHSC) alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Titles VII and IX.  UTHSC moved for partial dismissal, arguing that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim preempted Plaintiff’s Title IX claim.  Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent in Lakoski v. James, the court concluded that Title VII was the “exclusive remedy” for individuals alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex, and that Title VII, therefore, “preempt[ed] any private right of action for employment discrimination under Title IX.”

Sexual Misconduct – Employment; Sexual Misconduct & Other Campus Violence; First Amendment & Free Speech; Due Process; Constitutional Issues

Buchanan v. Alexander, et al. (M.D. La. Jan. 10, 2018)

Ruling granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Louisiana State University (LSU), alleged that Defendants infringed upon her freedom of speech, academic freedom, and procedural and substantive due process rights when LSU’s Board of Supervisors terminated her employment after finding that her remarks about marriage and sex to students—made while training students for preschool to third-grade instruction—violated the University’s Policy Statements on Sexual Harassment. Plaintiff also brought a facial and as-applied constitutional challenge to LSU’s sexual harassment policy, arguing that it was overbroad and lacked an objective test for offensiveness. The court found that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims failed either because they were time-barred or because qualified immunity protected Defendants’ objectively reasonable actions, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff failed to show that her remarks were protected speech or germane to a legitimate pedagogical purpose. The court further found that LSU’s sexual harassment policy was constitutional, both facially and as-applied to Plaintiff, since its language required conduct to be objectively severe and examples provided in the policy illustrated that conduct must be sufficiently severe and pervasive. Last, the court found that Plaintiff was afforded procedural and substantive due process to satisfy constitutional standards leading up to her termination. 

Title IX; Sexual Misconduct – Employment; Sexual Misconduct & Other Campus Violence; Due Process; Constitutional Issues

Chambers v. Tennessee Board of Regents, Southwest Tennessee Community College (W.D. Tenn. July 28, 2017)

Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. A female student claimed that Southwest Tennessee Community College (STCC) failed to conduct an adequate investigation and take appropriate remedial action in response to her complaints that a male employee sexually assaulted her and created an environment conducive to sexual misconduct. According to the Complaint, however, STCC conducted an initial investigation, referred Plaintiff to counseling, and transferred the male employee to another department. The fact that Plaintiff preferred that the male employee be terminated rather than transferred was not sufficient to support a Title IX claim. The Tennessee Board of Regents, STCC, and the individual Defendants in their official capacities were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process claims against all the individual Defendants--except the alleged perpetrator in his unofficial capacity--were dismissed for failure to identify a violation of a clearly established right. Finally, the alleged perpetrator’s conduct, though perhaps “deplorable,” was not sufficient to establish a constitutional claim.