by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2024
Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.
Medical School Surgeon Awarded $15 Million in Damages Resulting From Biased Harassment Investigation
A federal trial court jury awarded a medical school surgeon $15 million in damages. The jury concluded that the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital medical school’s sex harassment investigation of the plaintiff, who was accused of harassment and sexually assaulting a female medical school resident, was biased against males (Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, et al (Case No. 2:20-cv-02967, E.D. Pa. 12/11/23)). The plaintiff claimed that prior to the incident, he had an “unblemished” reputation. He claimed that due to the medical school’s mishandling of the disciplinary proceeding, he had been labelled a “rapist,” had been ostracized by professional colleagues, and had suffered damages to his livelihood.
The incident, subject to the lawsuit, involved a pool party at the plaintiff’s home in 2018. The plaintiff alleged that the medical resident became sexually aggressive toward him without his consent, and he was too intoxicated to resist. The plaintiff claims to have reported the incident to the hospital and found that the resident had filed a complaint against him, which resulted in the allegedly anti-male biased investigation and proceedings. Prior to the verdict, the medical school filed a motion for mistrial, alleging that the “belligerent” treatment of the court by the plaintiff’s counsel unduly influenced the jury. As of writing, there has been no action on the defendant’s motion.
LSU Associate Athletic Director Claims Race and Sex Discrimination, Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment in Lawsuit
A federal district court judge granted partial summary judgement dismissing some charges brought against Louisiana State University by a terminated, former associate athletic director, but allowed some allegations of race and sex retaliatory discrimination and hostile work environment to move forward to a jury trial against the university’s board of supervisors (Lewis v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana State University (2023 BL 437930, M.D. La., No. 3-21-cv-00198, Partial summary judgement, 12/1/23)).
The university argued that the former associate athletic director was fired in a shake-up made by a new university football coach, which had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race or sex. However, the new coach denied at deposition that he made the decision to fire the associate athletic director, creating a factual dispute that the court ruled should go to a jury. The federal judge concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations of a sexually hostile work environment should proceed to a jury trial as well as the allegations that she was denied a pay raise and ultimately fired because she is a Black woman.
NCAA Proposes Plan to Allow Institutions to Pay Student-Athletes
The NCAA proposed a plan in December 2023 to allow some institutions to invest at least $30,000 into an educational trust for at least half of their student-athletes to address the ongoing controversy over payments to student-athletes. Commentators point out that there will be many challenges to the new plan, including possibly running afoul of Title IX. Moreover, the plan will not make the pending Fair Labor Standards Act and National Labor Relations Act student-athlete claims go away.
Commentators also point out that the proposal does not address the pending class action damage claim filed against the NCAA in the name, image and likeness (NIL) litigation, which is scheduled for trial in January 2025. Plaintiffs in that class action are claiming damages of $4.5 billion as a result of the NCAA’s past ban on NIL payments, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston in August 2021 on anti-trust grounds.
Federal Judge Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim Against Princeton
A federal district court judge recently granted a motion to dismiss filed by Princeton University in a case brought by a former budget analyst who claims she was fired because of her religious beliefs when she refused to comply with COVID-19 protocols, including wearing a mask (McKinley . Princeton University (Case No. 3:22-cv-05069, D. N.J. 15/5/23)).
The case was initially dismissed because the complaint did not mention any specific religion or set of beliefs. The court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to refile and correct that omission. The plaintiff’s amended complaint contained allegations that “my body is my temple” and “decries… any and all abuse against life.” In dismissing the case, the judge concluded that the plaintiff’s beliefs appear to be a collection of general moral commandments. The court found that the plaintiff’s personal moral code and beliefs do not constitute a comprehensive system of beliefs that could be called a religion.
Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Former UMass Soccer Coach’s Age Discrimination Case
A Massachusetts state appeals court reversed the dismissal of a former women’s soccer coach’s age discrimination complaint (Matz v. University of Massachusetts–Amherst (Mass App Ct No. 22-P-1162, 12/7/23)). The coach, who was 51 years old, filed the claim alleging that his termination was because the university wanted to hire a younger coach and that the stated reasons for his termination were a pretext.
In dismissing the case, the university claimed the coach was terminated because of “an undisputed poor record” and “student criticism of his coaching abilities.” The appellate court recognized that the coach’s performance review concluded that he needed improvement and that there were student criticisms of his coaching abilities. Nonetheless, the appellate court held that the record contains “numerous positive reviews, inconsistent with the [2015 season] criticisms,” from which a jury could find he was terminated because of his age. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff raised a claim by a member of a protected class, who was performing his job sufficiently, and his allegations could raise reasonable speculation about discrimination.
California Jury Awards Nurse $41.5 million in Damages in Retaliatory Discharge, Whistleblower Case
A neonatal intensive care nurse who was fired after 30 years of service to her employer was awarded a California jury verdict of $41.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages as a result of her discharge, which she claimed was in retaliation for raising safety issues. The California state court jury awarded the plaintiff $1.3 million in lost wages, $1.2 million in future lost wages, $1.5 million in past mental suffering, $7.5 million in future mental suffering, $15 million in punitive damages against the hospital, and $15 million in punitive damages against the Kaiser Foundation.
According to the hospital, the plaintiff was fired after she was found reclining in the neonatal unit, talking on her personal phone with her feet resting on an isolette that had a neonatal infant inside. The plaintiff claimed that the stated reason for discharge was a pretext and that the real reason for her discharge was that she reported a supervisor who refused to report that the father of a patient was present in the hospital with a knife, creating an unsafe situation in the hospital (Gatchalian v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et. al. (Case No. 21STCV15300 Ca. Sup Ct. L.A. Cty. Jury Verdict 12/16/23)).
