|
February 4th, 2012
The First Circuit recently refused to overturn a jury’s finding of retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) despite the defendant’s claims that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case. In Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Muto Y Beneficiencia De Puerto Rico, the Plaintiff was a cardiologist who was terminated by the defendant-Hospital one day after the Plaintiff was deposed in a lawsuit against the hospital for age discrimination. The Plaintiff then promptly filed a second suit against the Hospital claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for his pending age discrimination suit. The jury agreed with the Plaintiff and awarded him nearly $2 million. On appeal, the Hospital argued that its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted with respect to the Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or any evidence of a causal connection between his protected conduct and his termination.
The First Circuit rejected the Hospital’s argument that judgment as a matter of law should be granted for the Plaintiff’s failure to make out a prima facie case on the grounds that it was “not the correct focus at this juncture.” The McDonnell-Douglas framework that requires the plaintiff to prove a prima facie case before putting the burden of proof on the defendant “is not a religious rite” but “merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of retaliation.” Once the question of retaliation has been submitted to the jury “backtracking serves no useful purpose.” The First Circuit therefore held that its correct focus on appeal was whether a jury reasonably could have inferred by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiff was terminated because of his protected conduct.
The First Circuit went on to reject the Hospital’s argument that the Plaintiff had failed to establish the causal connection required to prove retaliation on the grounds that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the finding, even if the determination was not “inevitable.” The Hospital’s argument hinged on the fact that Hospital decided to terminate the Plaintiff three weeks before the Plaintiff was deposed in his age discrimination case, claiming that the causal element of retaliation was therefore lacking in the Plaintiff’s claim. Although the Court agreed with the Hospital that an adverse employment action pre-dating the protected activity generally cannot support a retaliation claim, it found that the remainder of the evidence presented at trial supported the jury’s finding. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Tags: Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Causal Connection, Judgment as a Matter of Law, McDonnell Douglas framework, Prima Facie Case., Retaliation
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
January 30th, 2012
Boston’s Children’s Hospital argued in Suffolk Superior Court on Wednesday for the dismissal of a complaint brought on behalf of 11 people who were abused by pediatrician Melvin Levine in North Carolina. In February of 2011, Melvin Levine was accused in a class action lawsuit of performing medically unnecessary genital exams to dozens of patients while he was employed at Boston Children’s Hospital from 1966-1985. Following his employment at Boston Children’s he moved to North Carolina where he became a professor of pediatrics at the University of North Carolina Medical School, but still saw patients twice a week. Levine committed suicide the day after the class action lawsuit was filed last February.
The current lawsuit against Boston Children’s alleges that the Hospital could have prevented Levine’s abuses of patients in North Carolina had it reported earlier complaints. The plaintiffs’ attorneys claim that the public is reliant on the medical community to police its own physicians. Attorneys for Boston Children’s argued that there was simply no duty under Massachusetts law between Children’s and the North Carolina plaintiffs. Moreover, the defense argued that finding to the contrary could set a bad precedent that would open up the Court for any out of state litigant who would want to sue for the acts of its former employees.
The suit against Boston Children’s touches on the larger issue of whether an institution or any other employer has a duty to forward reports of internal complaints concerning an employee. Failure to report may result in allegations of negligence from the subsequent employer, but overzealous or wrongful reporting could also lead to allegations of negligence or defamation by the employee. The Suffolk Superior Court judge did not specify when a decision will be made in the suit against Children’s Hospital.
Tags: Boston Children’s Hospital, Duty to Report, Employer Liability to Subsequent Employer, Melvin Levin, Reporting Requirements, Sexual Assault
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
January 20th, 2012
In a decision upholding the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) of 1994, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that removing works from the public domain violates neither the Copyright Clause of the Constitution nor the First Amendment. In Golan v. Holder, Lawrence Golan, a music professor and conductor at the University of Denver, argued that the removal of thousands of foreign musical scores and books from the public domain exceeded Congress’ authority and violated his vested First Amendment interest in the works. Professor Golan’s argument questioned the constitutionality of section 514 of the URAA, which granted U.S. copyright protection to foreign works that garnered protection in their countries of origin, but had no right to exclusivity in the United States.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Ginsberg, the Supreme Court determined that the text of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution does not exclude application of copyright protection to works in the public domain. The enactment of section 514 of the URAA perfected U.S. implementation of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works which took effect in 1886. The Supreme Court determined that Congress rationally could have concluded that adherence to the Berne Convention was consistent with the spirit of the Copyright clause in that it “promotes the diffusion of knowledge.” Furthermore, the Court found that Congress had reason to believe that full compliance with Berne would “expand the foreign markets available to U.S. authors and invigorate protection against privacy of U.S. works abroad, thereby benefitting copyright intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process.”
The Golan Court further held that Congress did not transgress a generally applicable First Amendment prohibition in enacting section 514 of the URAA. Professor Golan argued that he and his peers enjoyed vested rights in works that had already entered the public domain. The Court held to the contrary, finding that “nothing in the historical record, congressional practice or our own jurisprudence warrants exceptional First Amendment solicitude for copyrighted works that were once in the public domain.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 514 of the URAA with respect to the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment.
Tags: Academic Freedom, Berne Convention, Constitutionality, Copyright Clause of the Constitution, Copyright Protection, First Amendment, Golan v. Holder, Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
January 12th, 2012
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the First Amendment precludes the application of the federal employment discrimination laws to religious institutions. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a Lutheran Church and School developed narcolepsy and began the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year on disability leave. When Perich attempted to return to work in January 2005, the principal told her that the school had already contracted with another teacher to fill her position for the remainder of the school year. The school subsequently terminated Perich.
Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The District Court granted the school’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the ADA claim was barred by the First Amendment. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded on the grounds that Perich did not qualify as a minister under the exception. The Supreme Court reversed.
In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court acknowledged the existence of a ministerial exception grounded in the First Amendment that precludes the application of federal law to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. The Court reasoned that requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, interferes with the internal governance of the church and therefore the right of the religious group to shape its own faith and mission.
The Hosanna-Tabor Court further determined that the application of the ministerial exception was not limited to the head of a religious congregation. It refused however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister within the scope of the exception. Instead, the Court examined the circumstances of Perich’s employment in reaching its determination that she qualified as a minister. In particular, the Court considered the formal title of “Minister of Religion” given Perich by the church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the church. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Perich’s ADA claim was barred under the ministerial exception of the First Amendment.
The Hosanna-Tabor decision only applies to employment discrimination suits brought on behalf of a minister challenging their termination. The Court refused to state a view on whether the ministerial exception bars other types of suits such as actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers claiming that “there will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.”
Tags: Americans with Disabilities Act, First Amendment, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, Ministerial Exception, Religious Schools
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
January 6th, 2012
The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to deprive public colleges and universities of the right to prohibit guns on campus. Current New Hampshire law permits public colleges and universities to create regulations concerning guns on campus. The bill would strip colleges of this ability and instead give the state the sole authority to regulate guns on any public land or in publicly owned buildings. Supporters of the bill argue that students have a right to protect themselves and that the bill will eliminate inconsistency in how guns are regulated. The bill’s opponents argue that teachers shouldn’t have to deal with students carrying guns and that the bill would permit people to bring guns to the state owned Verizon Wireless Arena, which is frequently the site of concerts, hockey games and other events.
Governor John Lynch has promised to veto the bill on the grounds that it would be a radical departure from the State’s current approach to public safety and would mean that private companies leasing state owned office space could not bar people from bringing weapons into their businesses. The bill passed the House 180-144, which is not sufficient to provide the two-thirds majority required to override the Governor’s promised veto.
Tags: Gun Regulation, Guns on Campus, State Gun Control
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
December 28th, 2011
The family of Phoebe Prince, a teenage Irish immigrant who committed suicide after suffering from relentless bullying, received $225,000 from the town of South Hadley in exchange for dropping all charges against the school district, according to a copy of the settlement agreement released yesterday. Following Prince’s death in January 2010, Prince’s parents filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination alleging that the Town of South Hadley failed to protect their daughter from discrimination. The parties settled the suit in November 2010, but the settlement amount was never released due to a nondisclosure agreement between the parties. In December of this year, a reporter for an online magazine filed a lawsuit requesting the disclosure of the settlement amount under the Massachusetts public records law. On December 23, a Hampshire county judge ruled in favor of the reporter on the grounds that Town had not demonstrated that any harm would be caused by disclosure of the settlement amount.
Tags: Confidentiality Agreement, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Massachusetts Public Records Law, Nondisclosure Agreement, Phoebe Prince, School Bullying, Settlement Agreement Details
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
December 22nd, 2011
The Rhode Island District Court dismissed a lawsuit filed against Brown University by a former student, William R. McCormick III and his parents, claiming that Brown falsely accused McCormick of rape in 2006 and pressured him to withdraw from the University. The female student who accused McCormick, as well as her father were also named as defendants in the suit.
McCormick attended Brown University in the fall of 2006 on a full scholarship. In September of 2006, McCormick was accused of stalking and harassing a female student and raping her in her dorm room while she was trying to study.
McCormick’s lawsuit alleged that Brown University accepted the allegations of rape without an investigation due to the female student’s father status as a wealthy alum and university donor. No criminal charges were ever filed against McCormick, and no rape allegations were reported to the police. As part of the suit, Brown was ordered to disclose detailed records of the father’s donations to the school to the McCormicks, something not usually requested of a private university.
The suit was dismissed after McCormick reached a settlement with the female student and her father. Brown University was not a party to the settlement agreement, nor did it participate in the settlement negotiations. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
Tags: Brown University, College Rape Victims, Rape Investigations, Rape on College Campuses, Sexual Assault, University Donation Records
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
December 21st, 2011
Eltayeb Abuelyaman, an Arab Muslim, served as an associate professor at Illinois State University’s School of Information Technology from 2001 to 2006. Abuelyaman’s performance record was consistently sub-par, and he frequently opposed policy decisions made by his supervisor. In March 2006, Abuelyaman was informed that his contract would not be renewed for the 2007–2008 school year. Abuelyaman filed suit, alleging that Illinois State refused to renew his contract based on his race, national origin, and religion, and in retaliation for several claimed instances of complaining about discrimination, all in violation of Title VII. The school was granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims in the district court, and Abuelyaman appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
In an attempt to create circumstantial evidence to support his discrimination claim, Abuelyaman argued that similarly situated professors outside his protected group were treated better than he was, and thus that the district court should have considered evidence of those professors’ performance records. Abuelyaman, a non-tenured associate professor, attempted to compare his treatment to tenured professors of all ranks. Even though Illinois State uses the same criteria for evaluating all professors, and a single supervisory entity performs evaluations for every professor, tenured and non-tenured, the court found that because higher-ranking professors are expected to perform at a higher standard, a comparison between treatment of tenured and non-tenured professors was meaningless in the Title VII context. For that and other reasons, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision. Abuelyaman v. Illinois State University, 2011 WL 6188446 (7th Cir. Dec. 13, 2011).
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
December 7th, 2011
Last August, University of Idaho (“UI”) psychology professor Ernesto Bustamante resigned, then gunned down Katy Benoit, a 22-year-old student, three days later. Bustamante committed suicide shortly after the shooting.
By the end of Bustamente’s fall semester class, Benoit and Bustamente had begun sleeping together. Their relationship was tumultuous and by the summer Benoit had filed a complaint with the university accusing Bustamante of sexual harassment and of threatening her life. Before that, a series of communications raised red flags for the university and prompted action: Bustamente informed his boss that he was diagnosed as bipolar, and several months later informed him that he was experiencing withdrawal symptoms because of a change in his medication; three months into the fall semester, the university’s ethics-and-compliance hotline received an anonymous call disclosing that Mr. Bustamante is having sexual relationships with students, and that a relationship with one student is abusive; Bustamente denied any policy violation, but was informed that any romantic relationship with a student must stop immediately.
Benoit’s subsequent complaint to the university charged Bustamante with sexual harassment and threatening her by holding a loaded gun to her head on three occasions and telling her in detail how he would use the weapon. The university’s human-rights office, where the complaint was directed, urged Benoit to take safety precautions and to contact the local police. The office also provided Benoit with contact information for a group that provides help for victims of domestic and sexual violence, a lawyer that she could contact for a protective order, and informed the provost and contacted the local police.
Bustamente denied Benoit’s allegations. A university threat-assessment team met to assess safety risks, and inform Benoit that she should stay somewhere other than her home. Five days after the threat-assessment meeting, Bustamente was interviewed by the university. He tendered his resignation that day, which the university later accepted only under certain conditions, to which Bustamente agreed, including a requirement that he not come to campus without first notifying his supervisor. At the beginning of the fall semester, Bustamente’s separation became final and Benoit was informed that Bustamente’s contract was concluded. Benoit was cautioned at that time to get assistance from the police if she had safety concerns, and was encouraged to take advantage of university support services. Later that day, Benoit was shot and killed near the university.
The tragedy led the school to convene an independent panel to review its policies and safety procedures, and to release more than 4,200 documents on the case, including Bustamante’s entire personnel file, in an effort to show that the university responded to Benoit’s complaint “immediately and decisively.” The panel’s report, released last week, recommended that Idaho’s policies be made clearer about exactly what administrators should do in high-risk situations – specifically those involving disruptive behavior by faculty and staff, as opposed to students.
Further complicating the role of the university as protector of its students, and cited by the university and the panel as stumbling blocks to more effective protection, are employment laws – the university may have felt it could not terminate or punish Bustamente for mere erratic behavior, after he informed it of his bipolar diagnosis – and student privacy laws and policies – it’s difficult to involve local police in discussions concerning the safety of particular students without disclosing student information.
This incident highlights the ever-present question for institutions of higher learning – where does the obligation to protect students begin and end? Even though it appears that Idaho took the complaints very seriously, and took immediate action to rectify the situation, the student still ended up dead at the hands of her former professor. There’s no lawsuit yet – but the family has hired a lawyer and alleged that administrators did not do enough to protect Benoit, or to stop Bustamente.
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
November 28th, 2011
Many colleges and universities are racing to buy .xxx domain names in an effort to prevent their trademarks from being exploited by the porn industry. On March 31, 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a plan to create .xxx domain names as a way of distinguishing porn industry websites from those that are family appropriate. ICANN also created a “sunrise period” from September 7, 2011 to October 31, 2011, to allow trademark owners the first opportunity to register for .xxx domain names. Several educational institutions were among the 80,000 trademark owners that utilized the sunrise period as a defensive tactic to protect their names from being used for nefarious purposes. “We don’t want someone coming across our trademark on a porn site. God only knows what they’d come up with,” Terry Robb, University of Missouri-Columbia’s Director of Information Technology told STLToday.com. On December 6th, the .xxx domain names will be open for public registration on a first-come, first-served basis.
Tags: .XXX Domain Registration, Defensive Domain Registration, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Sunrise Period, Trademark Protection
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
November 11th, 2011
The arrest of former Pennsylvania State University football defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, on sexual assault charges has placed the national spotlight on Penn State’s administration and the institution’s reporting procedures. Sandusky was charged on Friday, November 4, 2011 with 40 counts of sexual abuse of eight young boys over a period of fifteen years. The grand jury report released the day after Sandusky’s arrest describes charges filed against the University’s athletic director Tim Curley and Gary Shultz, the school’s interim senior vice president, for perjury and failure to report to authorities what they knew of the allegations as required by state law. On Wednesday November 9, 2011, Penn State’s legendary head football coach, Joe Paterno and Graham Spainer, the institution’s President were terminated due to their alleged failure to properly report accusations against Sandusky and prevent further harm.
At this early stage, the extent of Penn State’s liability is still unclear. It is highly likely however, that the University will face legal action as a result of the recent allegations, from the victims, their families, and maybe even from the State. While technically Mr. Sandusky was not an employee at the time of the incident, the controversy raises the question of how a university, or any other employer, should handle accusations of sexual assault against an employee or even an associate of an educational institution, as well as the consequences of failing to take the appropriate action.
Potential Charges for Limited Reporting
Universities like Penn State caught in a scandal concerning allegations of sexual abuse and/or sexual assault could face liability both for its handling of the situation and for its agents’ or employees’ actions under the doctrine of vicarious liability. Potential charges that may be brought against the University include:
- • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
- • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;
- • Gross Negligence;
- • Negligence;
- • Negligent Supervision;
- • Assault and Battery;
- • False Imprisonment;
- • Obstruction of Justice;
- • Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice; and
- • Failure to Report in Violation of State and Federal Law.
Defenses
To the extent Penn State goes get sued and/or if any other college or university faced with similar risk of liability, these schools are not without recourse. Colleges and Universities facing these types of claims may be able to defend itself on the following grounds:
- • Statute of Limitations: As many of the acts occurred several years ago, some of the charges brought against the University may be barred by the statute of limitations.
- • Outside of the Scope of Employment: An employer may only be liable for the acts of its employees that are within the scope of their employment. The University may therefore be able to argue that any acts of sexual assault were outside of the scope of employment.
- • No Causation: With many causes of action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was the cause of their harm. The University may be able to argue that they are not the direct cause of any harm to the victims because Sandusky’s actions were an intervening and superseding cause.
- • No Duty: To prevail on a claim for negligence, or negligent supervision, the plaintiff must show that the University owed him or her a duty to protect or warn against this conduct. Although some states find that universities have a duty to protect students from the foreseeable crimes of third parties, there exists an argument that Penn State or other similar universities, may have had no duty to protect non-students from the criminal acts of a third-party not employed by the university.
- • Standard of Care: The scope of a duty owed to the plaintiff is defined by the applicable standard of care. In general, a defendant must act with the care of a reasonably prudent person. If a school like Penn State is found to owe a duty to the victims, the educational institution may be able to argue that its actions were reasonable under the circumstances and it therefore met the standard of care applicable to the University and its employees.
- • Charitable Immunity: Many states have statutes which limit liability of charitable organization, like a college or university, for their alleged negligence. Depending on the content of the state law, an educational institution facing these types of legal claims may be able to limit the damages to which they may be exposed if they are found to be negligent.
Potential Charges for Reporting
While in the case of Penn State, public sentiment appears to be that certain Penn State officials should have done more to report their observations concerning Sandusky, this analysis is based on hindsight – and as we all know, hindsight is 20/20. At the time a university or college decides what to do about reporting allegations of misconduct or a crime, especially when as serious sexual assault of a minor, colleges and universities must consider not only their risk of liability if they DO NOT report, but what types of legal liability they could face if they DO report. Universities that wrongfully accuse and report their employees of sexual assault or other crimes may face charges of:
- • Defamation;
- • Negligence;
- • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
- • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;
- • Intentional Interference with Contract; or
- • Breach of Contract.
Preventative Measures
Universities and employers should seek to avoid the need to resort to legal defenses by instituting and enforcing preventative measures. Such measures include:
- • Preparing clear policies applicable to employees and agents prohibiting criminal conduct and other misconduct which comport with the universities legal obligations;
- • Consistent application of employment and agency policies;
- • Conducting thorough investigations of all complaints;
- • Creating clear reporting procedures;
- • Identifying a chain of command;
- • Maintaining good records of investigations and trainings;
- • Preparing comprehensive training materials;
- • Routine training of employees and supervisors on sexual harassment and assault, as well as their reporting obligations;
- • Notifying employees of the consequences of failing to report; and
- • Routinely enforcing the reporting procedures.
Tags: Charitable Immunity, College Liability, Defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Penn State, Reporting Requirements, Respondeat Superior, Sexual Assault, University Liability, Vicarious Liability
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
June 21st, 2011
On June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court determined in Stanford v. Roche Molecular Systems, that federal funding of a faculty member’s research does not automatically give the university title to the resulting invention. The case arose from a dispute over the ownership of a method to detect HIV developed by a researcher employed by the Stanford School of Medicine. The researcher signed an agreement with Stanford giving the University all rights in his research and then subsequently, went to work for a small biotech firm and signed a second agreement giving them the biotech firm rights to all future developments from his research.
Stanford argued that the structure of the Bayh-Dole Act, which permits universities to retain title to patents, implies that title to the inventions of faculty members automatically vests in the employer-university. However, the Court did not find the University’s argument compelling. Instead, the Court cited the well-established principle that inventors have a right to their patents, and may assign that right however they choose. The Court further held, that if Congress had intended to divest investors of this right, they would have done so explicitly and not merely through the structure of the act. The majority also noted, that current practice affirmed their interpretation of the act, since universities regularly obtain assignment agreements from their researchers, as opposed to assuming that the assignment was implied as a fact of their employment.
In the wake of the Court’s interpretation of the Bayh- Dole Act, universities who wish to retain title to the inventions of their employees, must be vigilant in obtaining assignment agreements and ensuring that those rights have not already been assigned to a third party.
Tags: Bayh- Dole Act, Employee Inventions, Inventor Right, Stanford v. Roche
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
May 27th, 2011
Led by the American Council on Education, thirty higher education associations recently issued a letter to the Department of Education opposing regulations proposed by the Department in April that would create an exception to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Under the proposed rules, high school administrators would be able to share information on student achievement to track how their graduates performed academically in college. The purpose of the proposed rules is to ensure student privacy while clarifying that states have the flexibility to share school data necessary to judge the effectiveness of government investments in education.
In their letter to the Department of Education, the associations argued that the proposed regulations would substantially expand not only the amount of information shared, but also the number of individuals who could gain access to it. The letter stated: “we believe this will create significant administrative challenges for institutions of higher education which may begin to receive requests for data from multiple entities without a clear understanding of what authority resides in the entity making the request and what protections—if any—are conveyed or guaranteed in regard to the data.”
The comment period on the proposed rules closed on May 23, 2011, the same day the letter was issued. Click here for a full article on this issue.
Tags: American Council on Education, Family Educational Records and Privacy Act, FERPA, Record Access
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
May 17th, 2011
San Jose State University has recently received criticism from students for its slow response to a shooting on campus. On May 10, 2011, three people were shot and killed, in a parking garage located on the University’s campus. The University sent out a warning on the school’s speakerphone system within twenty minutes of the incident. An hour later, school officials sent out an email stating that there was no active threat. The school reported in a statement that university police quickly determined that there was no continuing threat to the campus community and that they believed that the incident was isolated to the three individuals involved.
As previously discussed in this blog space, this incident follows on the heels of the Department of Education’s decision to fine Virginia Tech for not notifying students quickly enough in the wake of the 2007 shooting. However, San Jose State University officials maintain that the notification was effective. Once officials determined there was no threat, they waited to obtain more information before notifying the student body. San Jose State University is one of the many schools that implemented an emergency notification system as a result of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting.
Click here for a full article on this matter.
Tags: Emergency Notification System, Guns on College Campuses, School Shooting
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
May 6th, 2011
On Monday, May 3, 2011 the U.S. Justice Department filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the Education Management Corporation (EMC), the second largest chain of for-profit colleges in the nation, for allegedly defrauding the government by illegally paying recruiters based on the number of students they enrolled. The suit was brought on behalf of eleven states including Massachusetts, California, Florida, New York, Illinois Indiana, Montana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Tennessee. Federal regulations prohibit all institutions receiving federal funding from using an incentive compensation system for recruiters. The suit against EMC alleges that the corporation wrongly accepted federal funds while using an incentive compensation system. According the suit, the employees of the EMC who signed up the most students were awarded with all expense paid trips to resorts in Las Vegas and Mexico.
Click here for a full article from the New York Times on this matter.
Tags: Education Management Corporation, For-Profit Colleges, Incentive Compensation System, Whistleblower Suit
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
April 29th, 2011
The City of Boston recently announced its decision to ask the City’s tax-exempt institutions, including universities, for voluntary yearly payments based on the value of their property. The money would be used to pay for city services such police, fire protection, snow removal and emergency medical treatment. This program would be the first of its kind in the nation. For the past several decades, many of the City’s non-profit organizations have made “Payments in Lieu of Taxes” which they individually negotiated with the City. The amount paid by each institution was extremely varied, with Boston University paying $5 million, while Boston College paid just $298,000 a year. The new payment initiative asks universities and other non-profits in Boston to instead make a payment that more closely resembles a tax. Each of the City’s non-profit institutions with properties valued at over 15 million dollars are being asked to pay up to 25% of what they would owe if their property did not receive tax-exempt status. Many of the City’s colleges and universities have not yet commented on whether they intend to comply with the initiative and pay the new amount.
Click here for a full article from the Boston Globe on this issue.
Tags: Boston Colleges and Universities, City of Boston, Tax-Exempt Status, Tax-like payments
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
April 25th, 2011
On April 18, 2011 Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed legislation that would have allowed concealed firearms on college campuses. As previously discussed on this blog space the Arizona bill was one of many similar bills pending in state legislatures across the country. The original bill would have prohibited schools from banning guns in all campus buildings, including classrooms. The final legislation narrowed the scope of the bill to only permit guns on “public rights of way.” It was the vagueness of this phrase however that doomed the bill. In her veto letter, Governor Brewer stated that the “legislators inexplicably decided not to define the “public right of way”… and instead decided to let a court be the final arbiter in defining the term. Governor Brewer disapproved of this decision stating: “We don’t need the courts to write our gun laws. That is the job of the Legislature.”
The Governor also criticized the bill for not explicitly limiting its coverage to colleges and universities. Although state and federal law prohibits guns in K-12 schools, the Governor felt that failing to expressly limit the scope of the law could constrain school boards from making rules to enforce those laws. Supporters of the legislation have claimed that they will attempt to revive the bill in the next legislative session.
Click here for a full article on this issue from the New York Times.
Tags: Arizona Gun Law, Concealed Carry Laws, Guns in Schools, Guns on College Campuses
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
April 15th, 2011
A senior astronomy major at Yale University died early in the morning on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, in an industrial accident inside a machine shop in a chemistry lab on campus. Michele Dufault was using a rotating machine called a lathe for her senior project investigating the possible use of liquid helium in detecting dark matter particles. Ms. Dufault was working on the lathe late Tuesday evening when her hair got caught in the machine. Fire officials found Ms. Dufault at 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning, without a pulse, sitting at the lathe with her hair caught in the machine.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has announced that it will conduct an investigation of the lab. Although OSHA only has jurisdiction over employees and not students, the agency claims the presence of employed faculty and technicians gives it jurisdiction over the school’s lab.
Yale’s President said in a statement that the university plans to review the “safety policies and practices of laboratories, machine shops and other facilities with power equipment.” The University plans to limit undergraduate access to facilities with power equipment to specific hours until the safety review is complete.
Click here for a full article from the New York Times on this issue.
Tags: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Student Death, Student Lab Safety, Yale University
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
April 1st, 2011
The Department of Education has fined Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University $55,000 for its handling of the mass shootings that killed 33 students on its campus in 2007. The Department claims Virginia Tech violated a federal crime reporting law by failing to quickly notify students that a gunman was at large on campus. At 7:15 a.m. on April 16, 2007, the gunman shot and killed two students in a dorm on the Virginia Tech campus. The school waited until 9:26 a.m. to release a notification, and even then did not say that the gunman was still at large or that he had committed murder. The gunman shot 47 more people after the school’s notification. By 9:50 a.m. the school sent out more severe warnings by e-mail, phone and loudspeaker.
In a letter issued to the school the Department of Education stated that the lapse in time between the shootings and the notifications facilitated the shooting of a greater number of victims. The Department further claimed that the school’s failure warranted an even greater fine than the $55,000 permitted under the applicable federal law. Virginia Tech claims that the school is being held accountable for regulations that didn’t exist until after the shootings and plans to appeal the fine.
Click here for a full article on this issue.
Tags: Crime Reporting Law, Department of Education, Emergency Notification System, Virginia Tech Shooting
Posted in Industry News | No Comments »
|
