RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW-University & Institutions of Higher Learning

Journal of Law and Education, Oct 2004

Constitutional Claims and Civil Rights

Former Board of Education employee sued her employer asserting constructive discharge, hostile work environment and discrimination on the basis of race and sex. Before resigning her position, the employee experienced repeated warnings that her position would be eliminated, as well as a supervisor's attempts to persuade the School Board to terminate her contract. Held: For Employee in part and for School Board in part. The former employee's race-based constructive discharge and hostile work environment claims were allowed to proceed, because the Court found a reasonable jury could conclude the work situation was "intolerable." However, evidence was insufficient as to any discrimination on the basis of sex. Grey v. City of Norwalk Bd. of Educ., 304 F. Supp. 2d 314 (D. Conn. 2004).

Student sued private university for alleged violations of his right to statutory and contractual due process. Student was immediately dismissed from the university after admitting he had a dangerous weapon in violation of school rules. He argued the school's failure to give him adequate notice of the dismissal proceedings deprived him of sufficient opportunity to defend himself and, as a result, violated his right to due process. Held: For the school. State law did not require private universities to afford students the same level of due process as state schools or other state actors. School was not in violation of a contractual obligation because it had reserved the right to make disciplinary decisions without due process under certain circumstances. Center College v. Trzop, 127 S.W.3d 562 (Ky. 2003).

College applicants sued admission officials for state colleges and universities, alleging that a policy of denying admission to applicants who do not have legal immigration status was a violation of the United State Constitution, an impermissible restraint on interstate commerce and a violation of their rights to due process. University officials sought dismissal of all claims. Held: For applicants in part and for officials in part. Determination of immigration status is a federally regulated area of law. Whether or not the state had improperly infringed on federal law in adopting its admission policy hinged on whether it was shown to have adopted federal standards for determining immigration status or created its own criteria. Dismissal of claim was not proper. The admission policy did not excessively interfere with foreign commerce. Admission to universities and colleges was not a constitutionally protected property right and the applicants' rights to due process were not violated. Equal Access Educ. v. Merten, 305 F. Supp. 2d 585 (E.D. Va. 2004).

Former Ph.D. candidate sued college administrators alleging violations of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment concerning the completion of his dissertation. Candidate claimed the college employees misused his dissertation for their own benefit. After the complaint, candidate was discharged for disorderly behavior. Candidate rejected future offers to finish dissertation and filed suit claiming that the college employees violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and his free speech rights under the First Amendment. Held: For College administrators. Candidate did not clearly establish a due process right to finish his dissertation with a replacement professor, and candidate's speech was not protected under the First Amendment because it was not a matter of public concern. Salehpoor v. Shahinpoor, 358 F.3d 782 (10th Cir. 2004).

Student filed action alleging university officials violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. Student enrolled in an acting class that required her to repeat language she found offensive. University officials declined to change the script. Student refused to utter offensive language and voluntarily withdrew from the university. Held: For student in part and university in part. The language in the script was school-sponsored speech and a question of fact existed as to whether or not the refusal to allow student to substitute language was related to educational concerns. Another question of fact existed regarding the officials use of individual discretion when deciding when students must adhere to the rules. Additionally, a question existed as to whether the official's actions were reasonable; therefore the officials were denied qualified immunity. Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004).

Student sued state alleging violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. Washington's scholarship funds were provided to state residents meeting certain qualifications. Student chose to pursue a theology degree and he was not allowed to use State educational assistance program. Held: For the State. State prohibition against supporting the pursuit of a theology degree, with state funds, supported a substantial governmental interest in not establishing a particular religion. Not allowing a student to pursue a theological degree with State funds does not place a heavy burden on the student. Therefore, the education program did not violate the First Amendment. Locke v. Davey, 124 S.Ct. 1307 (2004).