On May 6, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released final regulations under Title IX. These regulations significantly change how higher education institutions, and to a lesser extent, school districts, must respond to sexual assault and harassment on campus.
On April 24, 2020, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals revived a former college coach’s retaliation claim brought against his previous employer. The case, Marc Benjamin v. Board of Trustees of Barton Community College, involves a former women’s softball coach who claimed he was terminated by the college because he “blew the whistle” on other college coaches who had violated league rules. The district court that first heard the case granted summary judgment in favor of the college, effectively finding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of Mr. Benjamin’s claims. Mr. Benjamin appealed, and the Tenth Circuit subsequently reversed the district court’s decision.
In a decisionon April 10, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a college’s motion to dismiss a claim of common law negligence in a lawsuit challenging its administrative response to allegations of sexual assault. Application of this common law standard to such cases is infrequent, and the court’s analysis highlights important differences between a common law theory of negligence and the federal “deliberate indifference” standard applied under Title IX.
On Wednesday, May 6, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) released final regulations under Title IX. These regulations come after the USDOE sifted through over 124,000 comments during the public comment period. The new regulations focus on how colleges and universities must investigate and adjudicate sexual misconduct cases under Title IX.
Here are two breaking developments we do not want you to miss. On May 6, 2020, the same day the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued its sweeping Title IX Final Rule, the Department’s Office of Federal Student Aid announced that all recipients of funding from the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act must post on their primary websites specific details about how they allocated funding for emergency grants to students. This posting must be done within 30 days of receipt of the funds from the federal government.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges for college administrators as they evaluate whether to continue Title IX investigations through telephone and video conferences or postpone interviews and hearings until “stay at home” orders are withdrawn by state and local governments.
If Title IX investigations are postponed, victims of alleged sexual misconduct on campuses may sustain prolonged trauma. On the other hand, students accused of wrongdoing may be at a disadvantage if cases proceed through telephone or videoconferences. The mounting uncertainty created by the coronavirus pandemic poses unique scenarios for institutions committed to prompt and equitable resolution of complaints.
As a result of the COVID-19 crisis, many universities and colleges across the country suspended in-person classes and required students to vacate school housing. Students have since filed a wave of federal class action lawsuits against these institutions claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment for alleged failure to refund the students for tuition, housing and various activities fees. We provide a quick update and overview below.
In Squeri v. Mount Ida College, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Massachusetts District Court dismissing students’ claims against Mount Ida College for closing its doors.1 In doing so, the First Circuit explained that the officers and trustees of a higher education institution owe a fiduciary duty to the institution itself, but not to its students. This is an important clarification as other higher education institutions face the difficult decision, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, of whether or not to close.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, colleges and universities have shifted to online education to encourage social distancing and prevent the spread of the virus. A herculean task for many institutions, this presents a unique opportunity for institutions to evaluate the accessibility of their websites, learning management systems and online communication platforms for compliance with applicable law.
On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which enacted the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. These Acts make new categories of leave available to eligible employees of covered public employers as well as private employers with fewer than 500 employees. This 500-employee threshold has left many higher education institutions wondering whether their student workers may be counted as employees and whether their students are entitled to leave.
The work world during the COVID-19 pandemic has been changing at an astounding pace. As change has occurred, your organization has been making out-of-the ordinary decisions. This communication is a reminder that it is important to appropriately document the decisions you have made and the rationale for them. When this crisis is over and work returns to a new normal, it may be difficult to remember the daily decisions made during these stressful times.
While many colleges and universities shift to online instruction to prevent the community spread of COVID-19, administrators must consider how their institutions will handle investigations during this time. Institutions face the challenge of ensuring substantial compliance with governing law and internal policy in a new environment, where key stakeholders practice social distancing, may reside in different times zones, and may have different levels of access to technology.