Some new cases compliments of NACUA

Good day.  NACUA is pleased to send you this update of higher education cases reported during the week of November 19 - 23, 2007.   To access the complete text of the highlighted cases, click on the case name and enter your NACUA username and password.   If you have forgotten your NACUA website password, please click here and it will be sent to you via email.  If you have any problems logging into the cases, contact us at techsupport@nacua.org.   Cases in this weekly update may always be accessed on NACUAWEB. The web page is updated daily by the NACUA staff.    (Note:  this message is best viewed in HTML format.  If you have difficulty viewing the message or using the links, click here to access the message text on the NACUA web page).

 

Civil Rights
Senu-Oke v. Jackson State University, (S.D.Miss.)
November 22, 2007: Civil Rights -Officials at a Mississippi state university were entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 1983 to a prospective Executive Ph.D. program student of Nigerian national origin. University officials could have reasonably concluded he had no property interest protected by due process, in light of the fact he had not completed the steps necessary for registration. While he had been accepted for admission to the university and paid a $2,000 deposit, he left orientation prior to completing the process of registration/enrollment, including the payment of his tuition/fees. Even assuming he had a protected property interest and university officials could not reasonably have concluded otherwise, the officials were still entitled to qualified immunity because they could reasonably have concluded he was afforded all the process he was due. His "dismissal" from the program was best viewed as academic but even if it qualified as disciplinary he was given ample opportunity to communicate in writing and was not entitled to a face-to-face meeting with program's founding director. As for his equal protection claim, he offered no proof he was treated differently because of his national origin from any similarly situated individual and was in fact the only person who ever departed from orientation prior to even registering.

 

Jolevare v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., (D.D.C.)
November 19, 2007: Civil Rights - A sorority was not liable to sorority members under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) for suspending the members for violating sorority's anti-hazing policy. There was no showing that the members' relationship with the sorority was that of an employee and employer within meaning of DCHRA.

 

Immunity
Alobaidi v. University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.))
November 19, 2007: Immunity - A Texas state university health science center did not waive its sovereign immunity, with respect to an employee's retaliatory discharge claim, by seeking district court review of the employee's workers' compensation award. In the workers' compensation case, the health science center sought judicial review of the appeals panel's decision regarding the compensability of the employee's injury. The center never asserted a claim for monetary relief, and in its district court petition, the center sought a take nothing judgment against the employee and the costs it expended in the suit. In the retaliatory discharge case, the center was the defendant and had not asserted any claim for relief against the employee. This decision may not yet be released for publication.

Labor and Employment
Norbert v. LSU Health Sciences Center, (La.App. 1 Cir.)
November 21, 2007: Labor and Employment -  The termination of university employee for violating the employer's sick leave policy constituted excessive discipline. The employee was a 22-year employee for employer, and she only worked eight hours for second employer while on leave. 

 

Mutts v. Southern Connecticut State University, (C.A.2 (Conn.))
November 20, 2007: Labor and Employment - Assuming third party retaliation claims were cognizable under Title VII, a university custodian failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The employee claimed that she was exposed to cleaning agents and chemicals in a poorly ventilated area when she was transferred to residence halls, that she was asked to clean up mold on one occasion, and that she was assigned an increased workload due to hiring freezes. However, she failed to show that any of the challenged actions by university amounted to materially adverse changes in her work conditions.