In May 2006, Julea Ward enrolled at Eastern Michigan University and began pursuing a master’s degree in counseling.

It quickly became clear to program professors that Ward holds strong Christian beliefs. She told them in no uncertain terms that her religion barred her from “affirming” or “validating” homosexual behavior.

Professors responded by instructing her that she had to “support her clients’ sexual orientation, whatever that may be.”

When Ward reviewed the file of a client she was assigned to counsel, she saw that he sought advice about a same-sex relationship. Ward asked her faculty supervisor whether to refer the client only if the session required her to affirm the same-sex relationship, or whether the client should be reassigned immediately.

The supervisor reassigned the client immediately. A short time later, she was expelled. The school said she violated the American Counseling Association’s code of ethics by:
• “imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals,” and
• discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ward sued members of the review committee and other school officials, claiming a violation of her free speech and free exercise rights under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

A district court ruled against Ward, but a federal appeals court reversed and said her claims should go to a jury.

The appeals court explained that public educators can limit student speech with respect to school-sponsored expressive activities only if the limits are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

However, they cannot selectively enforce a curricular requirement or single out a student for discipline based on hostility to his speech. In this case, a jury could easily find that the code of ethics did not bar Ward’s referral request and that the school used certain code provisions to punish her speech and religious views.

Nothing in the code of ethics banned values-based referrals such as the one Ward requested. She made the request to avoid imposing her values on homosexual clients, and she was willing to counsel such clients about other issues. In addition, a separate part of the code expressly allowed values-based referrals, and several textbooks used in Ward’s classes did so as well.

The school officials argued that even aside from the code, the school had a policy banning practicum students from referring clients. But the evidence suggested this “policy” was “an after-the-fact invention.” A student manual included a chapter dedicated to referrals, and the school said nothing about such a policy when it dismissed Ward.

There was other evidence weighing in Ward’s favor. The school let students request certain types of students to counsel, and it once allowed a grieving student to refrain from counseling a grieving client. Why, the court asked, should Ward be treated differently?

There was strong evidence that the only policy governing students was the code of ethics, which allowed for referrals. Because a jury could find that the school dismissed Ward based on her faith-based speech, the lower court’s decision favoring the school officials was reversed. The case will proceed.

Cite: Ward v. Polite, No. 10-2100, 2012 WL 251939 (6th Cir. 1/27/12).

Dushawn Sellers enrolled in the registered nurse program at Rio Grande University. Sellers, who began taking classes on campus in the summer of 2011, has epilepsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression.

When she started having trouble with a course in the fall of that year, she went to one of the two professors who taught it and asked for help. Sellers said the professor told her no accommodations could be provided until Sellers obtained a certification of need for them from the school’s accessibility office.

Sellers then obtained something called an Individual Accommodation Plan from the accessibility office. The plan said she was entitled to accommodations including tutoring, drinks in the classroom, use of a tape recorder and extended test time.

According to Sellers, on the day before a test in the class she gave a copy of the plan someone in the faculty office and put another copy in the mailbox of one of the professors who taught the course. But when she took a test in the class a day later, neither course professor was aware of the plan.

Eventually, Sellers asked for help from her faculty advisor, who in turn sought help from a dean. The dean told Sellers that one of the two professors for the class would be her tutor. The professor tutored Sellers for an hour, but Sellers claimed the session was ineffective.

After a confrontation during which Sellers accused one of the professors of failing to provide tutoring services, the school hired a tutor who met with Sellers three times.

Sellers failed the final exam and the course, and she was not allowed to continue in the program. She sued, claiming the school violated the ADA by failing to provide her with effective tutoring.

The court issued a temporary restraining order that required the school to let Sellers enroll, and it extended the order at her request. As the time for the extended order to expire approached, Sellers asked for another extension.

The school argued that the order should expire because the ADA does not require postsecondary institutions to provide students with tutoring services. It also argued that it provided tutoring to Sellers.

The court decided to extend the order by 11 days. While there is legal support for the argument that postsecondary schools need not offer tutoring as a disability-related accommodation, there is also support for the idea that schools must provide tutoring to students with disabilities if tutoring is provided to the general student population.

Evidence indicating that the school had a policy of providing tutoring services to students supported Sellers’ claim. In addition, Sellers produced evidence that she would be irreparably harmed if the extension was not granted. Her ability to pursue her chosen profession would be delayed, and even the occurrence of bias prohibited by the ADA might be deemed an irreparable harm.

Cite: Sellers v. Univ. of Rio Grande, No. 2:12-cv-0005, 2012 WL 163806 (S.D. Ohio 1/18/12).

When Brittany Hamilton moved into student housing at the University of Nebraska, she wanted her four-pound miniature pinscher to come with her.

Hamilton had been diagnosed as having depression and anxiety, and she says the dog alleviates her symptoms.

The school generally bans pets other than fish in student housing, and it concluded the dog was a pet and not a legitimate service animal.

Hamilton supplied notes from her medical provider saying the dog was part of her therapy. But the school rejected them, saying they were insufficient to prove the animal wasn’t just a pet.

Hamilton left the school in early October 2010, about a month after she had arrived.

The Justice Department says the school violated the federal Fair Housing Act by refusing to modify its no-pet policy for Hamilton. They are asking a federal court to award damages, a $16,000 civil penalty and other relief.

Should the school have allowed the dog? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

According to New York University professor Jose Angel Santana, actor/director James Franco missed 12 of 14 class meetings for Santana’s “Directing the Actor II” course. Santana assigned Franco, who was pursuing a master’s degree, a grade of “D.”

After his stint as an NYU student, Franco taught a course at the school. He also hired an NYU professor to write and direct a film.

Santana says the school’s cozy relationship with Franco caused it to frown on his decision to give the bad grade — to the point where the school decided to take Santana’s job away from him.

His lawsuit has asked a court to order the school to give it back.

Have a comment? Please share it below.

In 2009, University of New Hampshire German professor Edward Larkin exposed himself to a mother and her 17-year-old daughter at a grocery store. But when UNH tried to fire him, they ran into some unexpected trouble.

The professor’s union arbitrator pointed to a line in his contract, which says a professor has to show “moral delinquencies of a grave nature” to be fired. And since it was a misdemeanor conviction and a first offense, for which the professor had undergone psychiatric treatment, he will keep his job.

“If you use state law as a benchmark this was not a moral deficiency of a grave order,” Union President Deanna Wood told the local news.

After spending the Fall semester on unpaid leave, Larkin will return to work in the Spring. Not that UNH is happy about it.

“The president and the provost believe that Larkin’s behavior constituted ‘moral delinquency of a grave order,’ which is stipulated as grounds for dismissal in the faculty contract and, in fact, that his actions fell far short of expectations for any university employee,” says a statement released by the school.

What do you think of the case? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Louisiana State University hired Ivor van Heerden in 1992 to work at the Louisiana Geological Survey.

When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, van Heerden was an associate professor at the school and was also the deputy director of its Hurricane Center.

After the storm, van Heerden began making public statements that suggested Katrina’s catastrophic flooding was caused by the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly engineer and maintain the city’s levees.

LSU officials weren’t too happy about van Heerden’s remarks. Fearing the comments could lead to a loss of federal funding for the school, they told him not to make public statements about the cause of the levee failures.

But van Heerden kept talking. He even testified before the state legislature and federal Congress, and he wrote a book that not only further discussed his viewpoint on the levee failures but also talked about LSU’s efforts to squelch him.

When LSU declined to renew his contract, van Heerden sued and claimed the school retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

A court found that there was enough circumstantial evidence for his retaliation claim against an interim dean to go forward. An email cast doubt on the interim dean’s assertion that van Heerden was let go for budgetary reasons. Also, there was evidence that the school had tried to hire new faculty members for the same kind of position that van Heerden held — which would cast further doubt on the claim that budgetary reasons motivated the contract non-renewal.

Cite: Van Heerden v. Board of Supervisors of Lousiana State University.

In its multibillion-dollar fraud suit against the Education Management Corporation (operating as Art Institute, Argosy University, South University and Brown Mackie College), the Department of Justice is charging that the company was ineligible for the $11 billion in financial aid it has received since July 2003.

This is the first case against a for-profit college in which the government has intervened to back whistleblowers’ claims that the company violated federal law by paying recruiters based on enrollment quotas (a practice that had been banned by the government in 2002).

The complaint says the company instructed recruiters to use high-pressure sales techniques and inflated claims about career placement to boost enrollment, even if applicants were unable to write coherently, appeared under the influence of drugs or wanted to enroll in an online program but had no computer.

According to the suit, Education Management falsely certified that it was complying with the law, which made it eligible to receive student financial aid. The company reportedly got $2.2 billion in financial aid in fiscal 2010, making up 89.4% of its net revenues.

The basis for the lawsuit is the False Claims Act, under which whistleblowers can file suits charging that the government has been defrauded. It allows for triple damages – which could be as much as $33 billion – of which the whistleblowers would receive a share.

In 2009, the Apollo Group (owners of the University of Phoenix) settled a similar whistleblower case for $78 million. Todd Nelson, chief executive of Education Management, had previously headed the University of Phoenix.

What do you think? Share your views in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Andrea Weathers, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, filed a lawsuit against the school. Weathers claimed she was denied tenure and a promotion based on her race, in violation of Title VII.

The court didn’t take long to reject her claim.

First of all, Weathers missed a filing deadline to apply for the post she sought. She tried to overcome this misstep by saying a timely application would have been futile, but there was no evidence supporting that position.

Even if she did submit a timely application, her claim would have stalled because she did not show she possessed the needed qualifications for promotion or tenure.

Weathers wasn’t able to point to another faculty member who was outside her protected class, had similar qualifications, and was promoted or granted tenure.

In short, her race bias claim fell short in a number of ways.

Cite: Weathers v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Have a comment? Please add it below.

Indiana’s Board of Law Examiners requires bar admission applicants to answer a number of questions about their medical history and fitness to practice law.

Among them (in paraphrased form):

1. Have you ever had a psychotic disorder, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia?

2. Since you were 16, have you ever been treated for any mental, emotional or nervous disorder?

3. Do you have any condition or impairment that could affect your ability to competently and professionally practice law?

4. Are you being treated or monitored for any condition or impairment revealed in the previous question?

A “Yes” answer to any of the questions prompts further probing about the applicant’s condition, diagnosis and course of treatment.

The board says answers to these questions are needed “to prevent a direct threat to the public.” But a law school grad and the ACLU say they violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars eligibility criteria that unfairly screen out people with disabilities.

The verdict, for now: Only the second of the four questions crosses the line. That one is just too broad and is not reasonably calculated to discover “direct threats,” the court said.

The other questions got the green light. Why? The first one zeroes in on more serious mental illnesses that could recur, while the last two narrowly focus on the current time period.

Cite: ACLU of Indiana v. Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners.

Did the court get it right? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

A former Harvard University fellow has been accused of hacking into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) computer network.

Aaron Swartz, who studied ethics, hacked into MIT’s network with the intention of stealing almost five million academic articles, according to reports.

The federal indictment indicates that Swartz broke into a restricted area of MIT and  illegally downloaded more than 4.8 million articles from JSTOR — an Internet-based system that archives scholarly articles, some dating back to the 1600′s.

The 24-year-old has been charged with:

• wire fraud
• computer fraud, and
• unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.

At the arraignment, Swartz pled not guilty. If convicted, he faces 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines. We’ll keep you posted.

Katherine Lees enrolled at Carthage College in the fall of 2008. Resident assistants at the dorm where she lived encouraged residents to leave their doors open so they could get to know other residents.

Lees says she was watching television in her room one night with her door open when two assailants entered. She claims one raped her while the other held her down. The perpetrators were never caught, and Lees later left the school.

In a lawsuit against the school, Lees said school officials negligently failed to take stronger security measures. But her claim failed because her expert’s testimony regarding the applicable standard of care was not admissible. Though her expert said the attack was foreseeable, there had been just one other stranger rape at the school over the previous 10 years.

Lees didn’t produce enough evidence that the school breached an applicable standard of care, so her case was dismissed.

Cite: Lees v. Carthage College.

A week after providing notice, resident assistants at Indiana University conducted safety and health inspections of dorms in a particular residence hall.

When they got to Zachary Medlock’s room, the resident assistants saw a tube of marijuana lying on his desk in plain view. The university’s police department was called, and after a warrant was obtained a six-foot tall marijuana plant and drug paraphernalia were found in the room. Medlock was quickly suspended for at least a year.

He sued, claiming the search violated his constitutional rights. But when he asked the court to negate the suspension and order his reinstatement, he lost.

The resident assistants went into his room only to conduct a routine inspection, and they were not state actors. Once they were lawfully inside and saw the marijuana in plain view, they were justified in giving access to law enforcement officers.

Medlock’s bid for reinstatement was denied.

Cite: Medlock v. Trustees of Indiana University.

Thomas Thibeault said that after he suggested that East College College policies didn’t adequately protect those accused of sexual harassment, the school’s vice president of legal affairs began ”a retaliatory crusade” that ultimately led to his dismissal.

Thibeault sued, claiming free speech and due process violations.

The case was resolved when the college agreed to pay Thibeault and his attorneys $50,000. In addition, the college’s president provided Thibeault with a letter of reference, and the school agreed to purge all records relating to the termination.

Have a comment? Please share it below.

In the fall of 2007 officials at the University of Dayton Law School told student John Valente that another student had accused him of violating the school’s honor code during final exams.

After an investigation and disciplinary hearing, the school concluded that Valente violated the code by receiving exam questions in advance from another student who had already taken it and by passing the questions along to another student. It suspended him for at least three semesters.

Valente’s response: a lawsuit. He claimed the school breached a contract with him and caused him to suffer emotional distress. He also said the school acted negligently and fraudulently.

No way, said the court. Although Valente claimed in court that a dean told him it was OK to accept material from other students who had taken an exam, he did not make this claim during his disciplinary hearing. There were no grounds for a  negligence claim, and the emotional distress claim failed because school officials did not engage in extreme and outrageous conduct.

Cite: Valente v. University of Dayton.

What’s your reaction to this ruling? Please tell us below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Adding another chapter to a longstanding debate, six American-Indian students at the University of North Dakota filed a lawsuit that seeks to put an end to the school’s practice of using “Fighting Sioux” as its nickname.

In 2006, the NCAA included the university on a list of schools with “hostile and abusive” American Indian nicknames. A settlement agreement in a suit filed by the university against the NCAA called for the school to retire the nickname by mid-August 2011 unless it got approval to use it from two tribes.

That didn’t happen, but the state legislature stepped in and passed a law requiring the school to keep the nickname.

Now comes the new suit, in which the plaintiffs claim the nickname has had a “profoundly negative impact” on them and has deprived them “of an equal educational experience and environment.”

Should “Fighting Sioux” and similar nicknames be banned? Tell us what you think — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Charlie Heard, who is African-American, began working as a wrestling coach at Waynesburg University in 2006.

During a practice in 2008, Heard told one of his wrestlers not to try a certain move in a match “because it ain’t going to work.”

According to Heard, the wrestler then charged at him in a rage. Heard responded by punching him in the face, allegedly in self-defense.

The school didn’t see it that way, and it quickly fired Heard. He sued, claiming racial bias.

To support his claim, Heard said the school’s athletic director “kept a file on him.” But in fact, the file documented admitted misconduct, such as such as being disrespectful and rude to school personnel.

Heard also said the athletic director called grown men “boys.” But this didn’t support his claim, because the evidence made it clear that the athletic director used the term in reference to all men — regardless of race.

The school showed it had a good reason to fire Heard — and it had nothing to do with his race.

Cite: Heard v. Waynesburg University.

Please add your comment below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Sherri Adams has multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis, and back and heart problems, and she has trouble walking long distances. In the fall of 2008, she was a student at Montgomery College.

At the time, the college was undergoing construction and didn’t provide enough designated parking for people with disabilities. As a result, Adams could not park near her classes.

A college dean told Adams that college security would drive her to and from her classes, but one day in late September security staff refused to take her to her car. They also told her they would not provide future transportation.

Adams tried to walk back to her car, but she fell and was injured before she got there.

She sued, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The school filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the court denied it. By asserting that the school refused to transport her back to her car, Adams alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of unlawful failure to accommodate.

The suit — including a claim for money damages — was given the green light to go forward.

Cite: Adams v. Montgomery College.

Have a comment? Please add it below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Violet Goodwin applied for admission to Creighton University’s law school for the 2010-11 school year. Among other things, she submitted her Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) score and a report that included what is known as an LSAC index score.

Compared to other applicants, Goodwin’s LSAT score and LSAC index score were not good. Her 136 on the LSAT left her well within the school’s “Presumptive Deny” category, while her 1.9 LSAC index score was lower than that of anyone who was accepted that year.

But when the university rejected her application, she claimed race discrimination and sued for $10 million. According to Goodwin, her credentials were “as good as anybody’s.”

Except they weren’t. The court granted the university’s motion for pretrial judgment, pointing out that there was simply no evidence supporting the allegation that Goodwin was denied admisison based on her  race. Instead, the evidence showed she was rejected because her academic credentials did not meet university standards.

Cite: Goodwin v. Creighton University.

Have a comment? Please add it below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Shawn Bukowski was a freshman pitcher on Clarkson University’s baseball team when he was hit in the face by a line drive during an indoor practice session.

At the time of the accident, Bukowski was pitching from regulation distance off an artificial mound. He was not using a protective screen.

When he sued the school to recover for his injuries, he acknowledged he was an experienced player who had seen batted balls come back to him on the mound many times before. But he said the school unreasonably enhanced the risk of getting hurt by neglecting to have him use a protective screen and by holding the practice at a facility whose backdrop and lighting made it hard to see the ball come off the bat.

The court didn’t buy it. It said Bukowski fully understood the risk of getting hit by a line drive. Evidence concerning whether conditions could have been made safer was irrelevant, it added, because he fully comprehended the nature of the risk involved.

A trial court’s ruling favoring the school was upheld.

Cite: Bukowski v. Clarkson University.

Did the court get it right? Please add your comment below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

While enrolled as a student in the University of Minnesota’s mortuary-science program, Amanda Tatro talked on Facebook about “dissect[ing] Bernie” and wanting “to stab a certain someone in the throat.”

The off-campus posts didn’t go over too well with school administrators, who gave her a failing grade in the course and imposed other disciplinary sanctions.

Tatro sued, claiming violation of her free speech rights.

She lost. The school’s student conduct code applies to off-campus conduct that adversely affects a substantial university interest and indicates the student may present a health or safety threat. Although Tatro said the posts were “intended to be satirical,” the university reasonably concluded they constituted threatening conduct.

Tatro also clearly violated an anatomy-laboratory course rule that says “conversational language of cadaver dissection outside the laboratory should be respectful and discreet.”

The court also pointed out that the program relies heavily on donors and their families, and that Tatro’s actions caused funeral directors and donors to question the university’s professionalism.

Cite: Tatro v. University of Minnesota.

Did the court get it right? Tell us what you think — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Michigan’s ban on considering race and gender in the college admissions process has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The 2-1 decision overturns a law passed in 2006.

Proposal 2, passed with 58% of the vote, forced changes to admissions policies to prohibit preferential treatment to any individual or group based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. But according to the U.S. 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals, the law violates the 14^th amendment’s equal protection clause.

Because Prop. 2 amended the state’s constitution, another statewide vote would be required to change it – which, the court argued, placed undue burden on minority interests who disapproved.

Other states within the 6^th circuit – Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee – will also be affected by the ruling. So far at least, the Michigan ruling won’t impact other state bans in California, Arizona, Nebraska and Washington.

State Attorney General Bill Schuette plans to appeal the ruling via rehearing, until which the law will remain in place.

Should affirmative action have an impact on college admissions? Share your views below, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

While a student at the Harper College of Arts and Sciences at Binghamton University, Jonathan Katz was required to complete a term paper for a history course.

Katz waited until just 10 days before he handed in the paper to pick his topic, and his professor described the quality of its vocabulary and syntax as “uneven.” She also said the manner in which the paper deftly linked a variety of complex doucments “suggest[ed] the analytical ability of a professional historian.” In addition, she reported that Katz was unable to discuss the paper intelligently at the time he submitted it.

The professor referred the matter to a committee on academic honesty, which unanimously concluded Katz had plagiarized it. He was assigned a failing grade for the course.

A court upheld the finding, rejecting the argument that the charge should not have stuck because the school never identified the source of the alleged plagiarism.

It didn’t have to, the court said. Identifying the source was not a prerequisite to a finding of plagiarism under the school’s academic honesty code, and the circumstantial evidence was enough to support the charge.

Cite: Katz v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York.

Should schools have to find the lifted source materials before concluding a student has plagiarized a work? Tell us what you think below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

In October 2002, Roy Sparks went with his family to Sam Boyd Stadium in Nevada to see a football game between the University of Nevada, Reno and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Before the game, the Sparks family went to a designated tailgate area at the stadium, met some friends, and had a birthday party for their son.

In a nearby area, Jeffrey Clack attended a separate tailgate gathering that was organized by the University of Nevada Alumni Association and the Southern Nevada Young Alumni Chapter. Members of two local chapters of a fraternity were there as well, although Clack was not a fraternity member.

When the Sparks family went to put some things in their car, Clack and two others were near it. After the Sparkses asked the men to move, a fight broke out between Roy Sparks and Clack. During the skirmish, Clack bit off a piece of Sparks’s nose.

The Sparkses later sued a number of individuals and entities, including the two local chapters of the fraternity as well as the national fraternity to which they belonged.

But the court said neither the national fraternity nor the local chapters could be held liable. The national fraternity didn’t have a duty to protect them from injuries inflicted by a third party, and the local chapters didn’t control the area where the fight took place.

Cite: Sparks v. The Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, Inc.

Have a comment? Please add it below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Soon after Debra Loeffelholz began working as a program coordinator at the University of Washington, her supervisor asked her whether she was gay. She claims that after she responded affirmatively, she lost the privilege of flex time and was denied the opportunity to attend training seminars.

Loeffelholz also said the supervisor often expressed his hatred for certain people and talked about revenge. In addition, co-workers told her he made derogatory comments about her sexual orientation and weight.

The supervisor was in the Army Reserves, and shortly before he left for Iraq in June 2006 he told staffers he was going to come back “a very angry man.”

Loeffelholz sued in May 2009, claiming violation of a state law against discrimination.

There were two potential catches: She had three years to sue, and the state law against discrimination didn’t apply to sexual orientation discrimination until early June 2006.

Translation: If the alleged “angry man” comment was a discriminatory act that might have been made within the limitations period — and if the remark was made before the state law amendment — the lawsuit could proceed. Otherwise, it had to be dismissed.

A lower court ruled against Loeffelholz, but an appeals court reversed. The exact date of the alleged “angry man” comment hadn’t yet been determined, but it may have been made within three years of the suit and before the amendment took effect — meaning it was too soon to toss the case.

Cite: Loeffelholz v. University of Washington.

Rudolph Alexander is an African-American who became an assistant professor at the Ohio State University School of Social Work in 1989. Initially, things went well: He was awarded tenure in 1995, and in 2000 he appointed as the director of the college’s Bachelor of Science and Social Work Program.

But matters took a turn for the worse after a new dean arrived in 2005. Alexander objected to the dean’s suggestion that all students sign a pledge supporting the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics — which says social workers should  not discriminate based on sexual orientation — because he believed doing so would require them to “accept homosexuality” and might violate their civil rights.

Alexander also became suspicious that he was not being paid fairly, so he asked the school for salary-related records. He then received two small raises and then no raise at all. In addition, he was replaced as program director.

Matters escalated when Alexander started referring to the dean as “gay” and a “leprechaun” in class. He also sent emails to school administrators that accused the dean of being a racist and a liar. The dean filed a harassment complaint against Alexander, and the school found Alexander had engaged in unprofessional conduct. However, it did not punish him.

Alexander sued, claiming race discrimination and retaliation.

He lost. He couldn’t prove unlawful race bias based on his removal from the director position because he was replaced by another African-American. And the evidence showed he was denied raises not because of any discriminatory or retaliatory reason but because he did not meet legitimate job expectations.

Cite: Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work.

Have a comment? Please share it below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

The U.S. Justice Department has joined an employee whistleblower suit alleging that Education Management Corp. (which owns Argosy University, among others) illegally paid recruiters based on the number of students they enrolled.

This practice is forbidden among schools that receive federal financial aid, out of concern it will encourage companies to enroll unqualified students. For-profit colleges can receive as much as 90% of their revenues from financial aid.

The company defends itself, saying the compensation plan was based on legal advice that complied with exceptions to federal law. The Education Department plans to make all incentive compensation for recruiters illegal this July.

This is one of at least 27 whistleblower cases that have been filed against for-profit colleges under the U.S. False Claims Act. If the Justice Department joins such a case, the whistleblower may receive 15-25% of any money recovered.

In 2009, Apollo Group, Inc. (operator of the University of Phoenix) paid $78.5 million to settle a similar suit.

What do you think of the case? Share your thoughts in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Seattle University student Catherine Webert was walking on a campus pathway when she tripped and fell, sustaining injuries to her hand, wrist, knee, chin and mouth.

The area of the walkway where Webert fell had been damaged by plant roots, but the school had made repairs. Even after the repair, the walkway was not completely even. Webert said that when she fell there was foliage that created a shade canopy and prevented her from seeing the uneven area until she was “mid-step.”

Webert sued the school for negligence, claiming the walkway created an unreasonable risk of harm.

She lost. Weber’s only evidence that the walkway was unreasonably dangerous was the fact that she fell, and it was not enough to establish legal liability. Even if she had shown an unreasonably dangerous condition existed at the time, there was no evidence the university should have known she would fail to appreciate the danger and protect herself from getting hurt.

Cite: Webert v. Seattle University.

Should the college have been held liable? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

At about 4:20 p.m. on April 9, 2010, a man wearing a green sweat suit shot someone on a Philadephia street. Local police quickly broadcast a bulletin on police radio that described the crime and what the shooter was wearing.

18-year-old Lionel Franks had just emerged from a local store after buying some new sneakers. He was wearing a green sweat suit.

A Temple University police officer received the bulletin and spotted Franks. Two other Temple University officers stopped him. Franks told them he had just left the store, and he had his new sneakers with him. One of the officers patted him down but did not find anything indicating involvement in a crime.

In reports, one of the Temple officers and Philadelphia Police Department detectives said a witness had positively identified Franks as the shooter. In addition, the detectives claimed they had spotted “red marks that appear to be blood” on Franks’s sneakers. However, the Philadelphia police later learned that no witness had seen the shooter’s face, and later DNA tests indicated there was no blood on the sneakers. The charges were dropped, but not before Franks was jailed and missed his senior prom and high school graduation.

Franks sued the university, claiming the Temple University officers intentionally provided false information to the Philadelphia Police Department and failed to investigate his alibi.

But the court dismissed his claims against the school because he didn’t show the Temple officers acted pursuant to a university policy or custom, as required.

Cite: Franks v. Temple University.

Have a comment? Please share it below.

Junhyuk Park was caught plagiarizing a paper while he was a student at Purdue University. When the paper was rejected, Park didn’t focus his defense on the argument that the work was his own. Instead, he said the school didn’t apply its plagiarism rules fairly and claimed he was singled out for more stringent plagiarism review because he is Asian.

According to Park, other students in the same program handed in papers with “a greater or similar amount of alleged plagiarism” and yet were not disciplined. The school rejected his arguments and expelled him.

Park sued – and got the green light to proceed with his claim that the school violated his equal protection rights. He had a clear right not to be subjected to a different standard of plagiarism review than other students based on his national origin, the court said, and it was too soon to tell whether the school violated his equal protection rights. Therefore, the school’s early bid to have the case tossed was rejected.

Cite: Park v. Trustees of Purdue University.

Did the court get it right by letting Park proceed with his claim? Tell us what you think below – and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Maryann Cottrell and Richard Holland are disability rights advocates who focus their efforts on making sure businesses meet legal requirments relating to accessible parking spaces.

In September 2005, the pair targeted Rowan University. They’d show up with video equipment, record alleged violators and file complaints against them for prosecution in municipal court.

When several of the alleged perpetrators told Rowan they felt harassed, threatened and even frightened by the behavior of Cottrell and Holland, the school held a hearing and then banned them from campus. The hearing included evidence of 10 incidents during which Cottrell acted in a hostile manner toward staff, students and visitors.

Holland and Cottrell sued, claiming the school’s ban was a retaliatory response to their efforts to protect the rights of people with disabilities.

They lost. They were banned because they were hostile, disruptive and aggressive, not because they engaged in protected activity.

Cite: Cottrell v. Rowan Univ.

Please add your comment below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

When Lauren Summa accepted an offer to be the manager of Hofstra University’s football team, her understanding was that she had the job for the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007.

According to Summa — who was dating one of the members of the team — things began going wrong right away. She said that during training camp in August 2006, unnamed individuals suggested her boyfriend “wasn’t good enough” for her. She also claimed that on four separate bus trips between August and November, she was subjected to various forms of harassing behavior, such as being locked in the bus bathroom and being told she should have sex with her boyfriend on the bus.

But when she sued for sexual harassment, she lost. Many of the incidents of which she complained involved “gender-neutral” behavior so didn’t support a sex harassment charge. Without them, she was left with a  number of incidents that weren’t severe or pervasive enough to create liability.

Cite: Summa v. Hofstra University.

Please add your comment below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Sheila Addison was hired as an assistant professor by John F. Kennedy University in September 2007. About a year later, she entered into a two-year contract that said she could be terminated only for just cause. The contract also had an automatic renewal provision that applied unless either party opted out within a specified time period.

Addison says she performed her job “competently and conscientiously,” adding that she never received a bad performance evaluation.

But in June of last year — at a time that did not fall into the opt-out period under the contract — the school sent her a letter terminating her employment. Why? According to Addison, the only reason given was the fact that she performed in a burlesque show called “Hubba Hubba Review.” She says the school told her that her involvement in the show had brought “public disrespect, contempt, and ridicule to the university.”

Addison fully admits her involvement in the show, which according to her complaint “provides political and social commentary on gender, sexuality, and body image stereotypes.” Though the complaint does not specifically describe what she does in the show, it says the revue consists of vaudeville and burlesque skits and adds that Addison’s performances “have content related to human sexuality and feminist theory.”

Addison never publicized her involvement with the revue on campus, and her affiliation with the school was never identified in her performances.

In a federal complaint filed earlier this month, Addison slammed the school with 15 separate claims, including ones for sex discrimination, harassment for failure to conform to gender stereotypes, and breach of contract. She says that during the same period of time during which she performed in the revue, a male professor performed in a one-man show that included disrobing and partial nudity. That professor was not disciplined, she says — even though he invited students and faculty to his show and advertised the show on campus.

Among other things, Addison is seeking back pay, front pay and punitive damages.

Should a school be able to fire a professor for performing in a burlesque show? Tell us what you think in the comments section below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Steve Armbruster was a police corporal with the Kutztown University Police Department in Pennsylvania.

In April 2007, about 15 demonstrators gathered on campus. They were met by about 300 counter-demonstrators who objected to the group’s anti-gay message.

University police arrived on the scene, and the police chief ordered Armbruster to “push” the demonstrators away. But since the assembly was peaceful, he was afraid that forcing them to move would violate their civil rights and possibly subject him to personal liability. He refused to obey the order.

Armbruster was later suspended without pay for five days. He sued, claiming violation of his First Amendment rights and his right to refuse to obey an unconstitutional order.

The court rejected his claims. His “speech” in refusing to obey the order was not protected by the First Amendment because it was made as a public employee and not as a private citizen. Also, courts do not recognize an enforceable right to refuse to violate the constitutional rights of others.

Cite: Armbruster v. Cavanaugh.

Did the officer deserve to be punished? Tell us what you think below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

The California State University System is facing criticism about the $4.57 million spent to defend a legal saga that ended with a settlement.

And taxpayers — who will foot about $135 million of the bill — have questioned how the university system handled the case while budgets were cut and educational resources dwindled.

Here’s what happened:

In 2004, San Diego State University strength conditioning coach David Ohton was allegedly demoted after reporting mismanagement in the school’s athletic department.

Ohton sued under the California Whistle Blower Protection Act, claiming he was retaliated against and ostracized by Head Coach Tom Craft.

Offering to settle the suit without financial relief, Ohton asked for an apology and for his position to be reinstated, according to his attorneys.

Refusing the offer, the university system defended the suit, which was initially dismissed in district court. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision.

After six years and $1.87 million in legal fees, the university system has agreed to settle the suit, paying Ohton $2.7 million in damages.

In-house attorneys for the university system blame the long and expensive legal battle on the “lack of legal precedent under the ambiguously drafted law,” which caused the courts to disagree.

Considering the thinly stretched education budgets, was this case handled in a fiscally responsible manner? Share your take in the comments box below.

Angela Cela thrived academically at Tennessee State University, and she graduated summa cum laude in August 2007.

Cela, whose ethnic origin is Pacific Islander, was interested in pursuing graduate studies in the school’s Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology. She said that at a meeting prior to her graduation, a professor told her to prepare a letter requesting admission to the program. According to Cela, the professor also told her only one grant (out of the six or seven that would be awarded) was available to non-African-American students.

Cela was accepted into the program, but her request for a grant was denied. She said she was specifically told by a school official that she did not qualify for the grant because she is not black.

Cela sued the university and some of its officials, alleging unlawful race discrimination. She sought to represent a class of all non-African-American students who have been denied the grant since 2002.

Though it didn’t completely toss her claim, the court said Cela can’t represent a class of grant applicants. The size of the proposed class — 12 — was too small to justify class action status. Also, Cela didn’t show there were questions of law or fact common to the proposed class or that her interests were sufficiently aligned with those of the group she wanted to represent.

The request for class action status was denied.

Cite: Cela v. Tennessee State University.

Should race be considered when grants are distributed? Tell us what you think below — and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.