Search

The authors reflect on legal protections for public institutions under immunity laws in the U.S. Topics discussed include Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution according to which states cannot be sued for money in federal court, court cases such as Potter v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska in which managers terminated the employment of information technology employee, and no liability for acts persons not within control under absence of assumption of duty toward a student.

The article reports on the impact of socially determined privileges and disadvantages on faculty as teachers in colleges and universities in the U.S. It is said that students and colleagues attribute various identities based on gender, race, class, nationality and sexual orientation. An awareness of the effects of socially conferred privilege can be especially helpful.

A Massachusetts federal court denied in part and granted in part Harvard University's motion for judgment on the pleadings in National Association of the Deaf, et al. v. Harvard University, et al. The ruling grants Harvard immunity for third‐party content embedded on its sites but hosted elsewhere. But the court rejected other arguments in Harvard's motion, and the case will move forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case name:Lewis v. Leonard, No. 3:13cv349 (N.D. Fla. 07/28/14). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents library-related news briefs. Dedication of the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois; Complaints made regarding the cost of the library; Decision of former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore to turn over 228 of the remaining 242 boxes of his administration's files to state library; How the boxes will be under protection until 2015; Decision made by the U.S. Library of Congress to send thousands of books on Russian history and culture to Texas A&M University/College Station and Miami University; Number of books rescued from an incinerator in Maryland; Hiring of Ronald Dubberly by the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, Maryland; Decision reached by the Trustees of the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, in Ohio, to keep 41 branch libraries open through 2003; Reason why an 85-year old man in California has lost his library privileges.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff, Siyuan Liu, sued the University of North Texas, its Health Science Center and various university officials, alleging violations of his rights to due process, equal protection, substantive due process and violations of Texas law. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, dismissed the case and left one claim against a university official stand. The 11th Amendment immunity shielded the state university from suits from private individuals in federal court.

The article reports on the dismissal of the student's lawsuit against the Central Piedmont Community College due to Eleventh Amendment immunity in the U.S. It states that the country's District Court has recognized the Central Piedmont as a state-funded educational institution entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. In response, the lawsuit filed by Helen Davis alleging the college for violating the Section 1983 that concerned about her civil right was dismissed.

The article discusses a court case wherein professor and counselor Gloria Dansby-Giles filed a lawsuit against the Jackson State University and college officials in Jackson, Mississippi. It mentions that the plaintiff claimed discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi rejected the plaintiff's claims in the grounds of the 11th Amendment immunity of the university.

The article discusses a court case wherein a student sued the Copper Union for violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in the U.S. The student alleged that the union violated the FERPA by disclosing information from her education records to her mother without her approval. The Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) explained that colleges are allowed to disclose information to the student's parents if the student is declared as a dependent by the parents for tax purposes.

The article discusses a court case wherein an injured student sued the Texas State Tech, alleging it had waived its immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The student presented some proof that the college negligently equipped some equipment that caused his injuries. The Texas Court of Appeals continued the trial court's ruling that the college was not immune from suit.

The article focuses on prepay discounts as an effective relationship marketing strategy for colleges and universities. Financial considerations are now becoming the main reason why students decide to enroll or not on several colleges. Consequently, any incentive that can make financial offers become more attractive may be of great help in recruiting and retaining students who are satisfied. It can also meet the goal of relationship marketing, which is to build satisfaction with quality service. Moreover, if this strategy will be implemented properly, it would be a win-win opportunity for the institution or students alike.

Reports that students from Mississippi State University has paid health fees each semester that allows them to see a physician or nurse practitioner for free at the John C. Longest Student Health Center. Benefits of the health fees; Statement of Robert K. Collins, physician and director of John C. Longest Student Health Center on their approach on student's health service; Objective of the health center.

The article discusses the court case, Pelham v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, which involved hazing of Jerome Pelham. The court held that the claim of a college football player of hazing and negligence against the university was prevented by sovereign immunity. It says that the claim was barred due to the absence of clear evidence that a state legislature intended to waive sovereign immunity.

The article presents a summary of a Middle District of Georgia federal judge's decision in February 2011 that dismissed the copyright claim of a plaintiff against the University of Georgia and several individual defendants within the athletic department. According to the court's decision, the school has the right to immunity, while a claim against a football game announced was dismissed as insignificant. Among the defendants named in the case include UGA Athletics Department, Vince Dooley and Damon Evans.

The article reports that Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy director David Palfreyman has warned of the possible rise in legal action by students unhappy with their marks if higher education is commodified with mechanistic and formulaic teaching methods. He added that the current immunity from legal challenge of academic judgement may some day cease to be universally safeguarded, citing the scrapping of immunity from litigation for barristers in countries including Great Britain and New Zealand.

The article discusses a court case wherein the Michigan State University (MSU) was sued by Carla Ward, a spectator struck by a hockey puck in the head at MSU's ice arena on March 12, 2004. Michigan Court of Appeals examined the decision made by the trial court in agreeing with the university to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff on governmental immunity grounds. The court discussed the plaintiff's failure to follow the proper protocol in filing the claim under the MCR 2.116 (C)(7) and (8).

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff filed an action for defamation due to his suspension at Fairfield University for alleged violations of the institution's community standards. Defendants claim that the judicial board hearing of the said University qualified as a quasi-judicial proceeding which provide them an absolute immunity. The court determined that the judicial board was a quasi-judicial body; however, it does not agree with its claim for absolute immunity.

The article discusses a court case regarding the state sovereign immunity in Alabama. In the Off Campus College Bookstore Inc. v. University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), the Supreme Court of Alabama nullified a circuit court's decision on a nondisclosure of names and addresses of incoming students at the university due to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The high court held that Off Campus' original lawsuit against UAH was void because it was blocked by sovereign immunity.

The article discusses a court case where William Rom was suspended for the alleged violations of Fairfield University's community standards in the U.S. Rom argued that the judicial hearing and hearing did not qualify as quasi judicial and claimed that if a privilege were to apply in this context, it would be a qualified or conditional privilege. The court says that the judicial board was quasi-judicial, however, it dismissed the board's claim that they were entitled of absolute immunity.

The article discusses various disability-related court cases involving the 11th Amendment. In the Strahl v. Purdue University case, the court granted summary judgment to the university since the plaintiff failed to allege a constitutional violation under the ADA. In Barber v. Norwich, City of, et al., the court ruled that the claim was barred by the 11th Amendment. In Magnetti v. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of the defendant since the suit was filed 3 years after the incident.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff Mary Helen Davis filed a lawsuit against the Central Piedmont Community College for alleged violation of her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the school has been granted summary judgment by the U.S. District Court in the Western District of North Carolina. The court holds that the college is an arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The article discusses the court case, Davis v. Central Piedmont Community College, in North Carolina. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Central Piedmont Community, by granting a summary judgment on the Section 1983 claims of violations by the complainant, Mary Helen Davis. Davis asserted that her First and Fourteenth Amendments' rights were breached when she was banned from Central Piedmont. However, the public institution was entitled to the Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The article focuses on a form of social engineering aimed at perpetuating mainly white middle-class privilege practiced by universities in Great Britain, which was argued at a debate organised by "Times Higher Education" in November 2008. Harinder Bahra, professor of management and diversity at Leeds Metropolitan University in England, cites that the expansion of higher education has increased participation yet did not broaden it. Bahra adds that inequalities have been replicated by institutions through admissions policies and organizational culture.

The article discusses the ruling of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cox v. Sugg in which it held that officials at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville had qualified immunity from sexual harassment claims under Section 1983. The ruling means that students can only be entitled to damages claims related to sexual harassment if an university official with authority to address the matter has actual notice of the issue. The facts of the case are presented along with the arguments of the parties.

The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit rejected the 11th Amendment immunity granted to the University of Missouri by the District Court stating that the university waived its immunity by invoking in an interference proceeding . In the Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Univ. of Mo., Vas-Cath sued the university when it called for an interference proceeding when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office gave the patent for a medical device to Vas-Cath while the application of the university for the same product was still pending.

The article presents information on the ruling of the 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the immunity of the Texas A&M University officials from a suit arising from a bonfire collapse in 1999. The plaintiffs of the case asserted that the defendants made a dangerous environment and encouraged the unqualified and inexperienced students to build huge bonfire without supervision. It is inferred that the court utilized a two-step inquiry to determine the entitlement of the defendants to immunity. The factors affecting the decision of the court are discussed.

The article discusses a court case wherein the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the judgment of the District Court without a trial for the officials of Texas A&M University. In the Breen v. Tex. A & M Univ., the estates of deceased victims and injured survivors sued Texas A&M and certain university officials following the 1999 Texas A&M bonfire collapse. The court found that the officials had qualified immunity from a suit arising from the 1999 bonfire collapse.

The article discusses a court case wherein the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas A&M University officials had qualified immunity from a lawsuit resulting from the 1999 bonfire collapse at the university, which killed and injured several students. In Breen v. Tex. A&M Univ., the Appeals Court upheld the decision of the District Court without a trial for the college officials. Furthermore, the court ruled that the danger theory was not sufficient to provide officials notice that their conduct violated the rights of the students.

The article discusses the court case Magnetti v. Univ. of Md., wherein the plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against the University of Maryland (UM) in College Park, Maryland. The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court to dismiss the claim because of the rule of governmental immunity. The case arose when the contract of the plaintiff as instructor/lecturer at UM was not renewed and his application for reemployment was denied.

The article discusses the court case Soderstrand v. Oklahoma. The case involved Michael Soderstrand, an employee of the Oklahoma State University (OSU), who filed a lawsuit against officials of the university after they allegedly conducted unreasonable search and seizure which violated the Fourth Amendment. The defendants were favored by the U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, stating that they have qualified immunity.

The article discusses the court case Xiao Yang Li v. Univ. of Utah, wherein the Utah Supreme Court upheld the trial court's determination that injured scholars and heirs of deceased scholars satisfied the requirements of Utah's Immunity Act in their action against Utah University. The ruling implies that waiver of government immunity is conditioned on strict compliance by the plaintiff with the Immunity Act.