Freedom of speech in the public employment arena presents a double-edged sword; on the one hand, freedom of speech is one of the most cherished values that undergirds the proverbial marketplace of ideas in a university setting but can also cause a public university to wade into a thicket of unsettled case law when it comes to denying tenure or otherwise undertaking any type of adverse employment action against an outspoken faculty member.

A major defense available to most public employers in a First Amendment retaliation case is the so-called “Garcetti defense.” In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), the Supreme Court held that when public employees engage in speech as part of their official duties, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment. This happens, for example, when a high school department chair makes an internal complaint about school curriculum. See Schulz v. Commack Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 21-CV-5646-RPK, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, ––––, 2023 WL 2667050, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023).[1]

 

Read More >> A Case of First Impression in the Second Circuit: Court Rules Garcetti Defense Not Applicable to Professor’s Claim of Academic Freedom

On Aug. 14, 2023, the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education and the United States Department of Justice issued joint guidance to institutions of higher education with respect to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The guidance, in the form of a Dear Colleague Letter and a Q&A document, clarifies the Departments’ position as to practices that are and are not permissible in the wake of the decision, and encourages institutions’ continued use of lawful means to enroll and support a diverse student body. For example:

Read More >> Departments of Education and Justice Issue Guidance with Respect to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

In 2006, the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos granted public employers’ broad discretion in regulating their employees’ work-related speech.[1] Before 2006, under the so-called Pickering Connick test, employees who were speaking as citizens about “matters of public concern” were only subject to limited restrictions when the government employer’s interest in effective workplace operations outweighed the employee’s free speech rights.[2]

Read More >> The De-Evolution of Post-Garcetti Public Employee Speech Regulation in Higher Education

As part of the NCAA’s efforts to promote diversity and gender equity in intercollegiate athletics, NCAA Bylaw 20.2.4.3 requires that all Division I athletic departments perform a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) assessment and file an attestation of completion of the review with the NCAA by November 3, 2023.   

Read More >> November 3, 2023 Deadline for NCAA Division I DEI Self-Assessment and Attestation

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.[1] The Court considered the admissions practices of Harvard College and University of North Carolina (UNC) and found that neither could withstand the “strict scrutiny” demanded for race-based admissions decisions. Although nominally about these two particular admissions programs, the Court’s rationale for its ruling leaves virtually no possibility that race-based admissions practices will withstand judicial challenge.

Read More >> Race in Admissions after Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs, which factor an applicant’s race into account during the admissions process, are unconstitutional based on Equal Pro-tection Clause/Fourteenth Amendment grounds. A link to the decision can be found here. The decision will have resounding impacts on institutions’ admissions processes. Our higher education attorneys are studying the decision and its implications, and we will be providing commentary and guidance soon. 

Read More >> BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Affirmative Action in Admissions 

On May 25, 2023, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) “as part of the Department’s launch of an Antisemitism Awareness Campaign” described in the Biden-Harris Administration’s U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism dated the same day. The DCL specifically notes the “nationwide rise in reports of antisemitic harassment, including in schools,” and reiterates the applicability of Title VI in this context. Title VI prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, or national origin by higher education institutions (IHEs) receiving federal financial assistance, and this protection from discrimination extends to students who experience discrimination, including harassment, based upon their actual or perceived: (i) shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or (ii) citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity. Therefore, students who are or are perceived to be Jewish are protected under this basis, and the DCL cautions that IHEs and K-12 “[s]chools must take immediate and appropriate action to respond to harassment that creates a hostile environment for these students.”

Read More >> OCR Issues Dear Colleague Letter on Antisemitism

On Feb. 15, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) surprised the higher education community with a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL GEN-23-03) that sets forth new guidance on third-party servicers with whom institutions of higher education (IHE) contract to help administer student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title IV). The Department requires IHEs to report contracts with third-party servicers and imposes certain requirements not only upon IHEs, but also upon the third-party vendors. For a list of those requirements, click here.

Read More >> U.S. Department of Education Issues Dear Colleague Letter on May 16, 2023 to Update Earlier Guidance on Third-Party Servicers

The United States Department of Education announced today a delay in the anticipated date for release of its Final Rule setting forth revised Title IX regulations. The Department had previously advised that the Final Rule would be released during the month of May, but now anticipates publication in October.

Read More >> Department of Education Announces Delay in Release of New Title IX Regulations

In the past six months, the federal courts have addressed some novel issues about what is a “sport” under Title IX, as well as questions of standing, retaliation, financial aid, class certification and Title IX’s equitable opportunities and benefits requirements. These cases reflect that the landscape of Title IX continues to change and requires careful attention to ensure that your school or institution does not inadvertently drift into Title IX violation.

Read More >> Hot Topics in Title IX Athletics: Recent Cases about Title IX Compliance in Athletics

Although transgender athletes have been competing for many years – recall Renee Richards playing professional women’s tennis in the 1970’s – the participation of trans-female athletes has recently resurfaced as a sensational headline topic. The Trump and Biden administrations took polar opposite positions and federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on this issue, which appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read More >> Hot Topics in Title IX Athletics: Transgender Athletes

It is a common practice in collegiate athletics to separate teams in two or more “tiers” of “major” and “minor” or “revenue” and “non-revenue” sports. Tiering may not be explicitly intended by administrators, but informal tiering is relatively common by virtue of emphasizing some teams over others. While tiering is not per se a violation of Title IX, it must be organized properly to avoid violations.

Read More >> Hot Topics in Title IX Athletics: Does Having Separate Classifications for “Major” and “Minor” Sports Violate Title IX?