Select the year you wish to search:
1994 / 1995 / 1996 / 1997 / 1998 / 1999 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 /
Liability / 1994
94.22 Personal liability for violating First Amendment rights, 199
94.24 Artistic criticism as defamation, 202
94.32 The changing nature of performance evaluations [promptly documenting employee deficienciesand developing a plan to address them], 212
94.38 E-mail, institutional liability, and freedom of expression, 220
94.29 Distinguishing bad treatment from discrimination, 222
94.43 Defining the scope of academic freedom [liability for violating First Amendment rights], 231
94.45 "Artistic criticism as defamation" use reversed, 233
94.46 Warning athletes about the risk of injury, 234
94.63 Dismissed professor awarded $500,000 [wrongful dismissal for alleged sexual assault;inadequate due process], 262
94.73 Gender discrimination against men in college disciplinary cases [Yusuf v. Vassar College], 280
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Liability / 1995
95.6 Employee dismissal and after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing [after-acquired evidence ofwrong-doing not a complete bar to recovery under Age Discrimination in Employment Act; strictenforcement of anti-discrimination law], 322
95.9 Retaliation and letters of reference [Former employees may file EEOC retaliation complaints;ways to avoid defamation in letters of reference], 327
95.11 Public access to e-mail [e-mail and open-meetings laws; limits on erasing e-mail; e-mailfrequently sought in discovery; "academic freedom" not a defense to disclosure], 330.
95.15 Memos can override manuals, 339.
95.35 Computer network can be sued for libel [Prodigy treated as "publisher"; with control comes therisk of liability; campus alternatives to e-mail and bulletin board censorship; CommunicationsDecency Act modified], 369.
95.39 Liability of mediators [successful mediation programs require candid discussion; protection formediation discussions and agreements; possible application of judicial and quasi-judicialimmunity to campus judicial administrators], 375.
95.47 Affirmative action and consumer fraud [lawsuit alleges white and Asian applicants not informedabout racial preferences for African-Americans], 384.
95.53 Challenging the ADA [a growing effort to modify the Act, mainly by applying a cost-benefitanalysis to pertinent regulations, and by narrowing the definition of protected disabilities], 394.
95.62 The benefits of confidentiality [constitutional right of privacy may create a qualified privilegeprotecting the confidentiality of discussions between university employees and a campusombudsperson; careful wording necessary when assurances of confidentiality are given], 414.
95.63 Freedom of expression in cyberspace [Washington Post critical of Virginia Tech decision topunish student for using a university computer server to send an offensive message off-campus; university computer servers compared to telephone systems; risk of liability forassuming editorial responsibility], 416.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Liability / 1996
96.11 Campus justice and student privacy [first civil suit under "Violence against Women Act" filedagainst Virginia Tech in aftermath of sexual assault; renewed debate about secrecy in campusjudicial proceedings], 456.
96.12 Defamation and civility [distinguishing mere hyperbole from defamation; liability for providingincomplete information; improving the quality of discourse on campus will require returning toPlato's notion of dialectic; Montaigne "On the Art of Conversation"], 457.
96.28 The benefits and limits of confidentiality [Supreme Court applied psychotherapist-patientprivilege in federal courts, including treatment by clinical social workers; a tort to induce violationof confidentiality], 499.
96.36 Equal Protection and harassment of gay students [in Nabozny v. Podlesny the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a school district and school officials could be held liablefor violating a student's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by failing to protect himfrom peers who harassed him because he was openly gay; ending the "boys will be boys"stereotype; the role of fathers in promoting self-restraint and empathy], 524.
96.41 Alcohol and "state-created danger" [police officers and public agencies may be liable foraffirmatively creating a danger to a foreseeable plaintiff], 538.
96.47 Human nature in cyberspace [legal and ethical responsibilities of system administrators;Haybeck v. Prodigy: Prodigy Services Corporation not liable for the off-duty sexual behavior of a(subsequently deceased) Prodigy employee "who transmitted the AIDS virus to a woman he metwhile participating in an on-line sex chat room run by Prodigy";advice to students about using theInternet wisely], 549.
96.50 The duty to prevent suicide, [administrators not likely to be held liable if depressed or troubledstudents subsequently attempt or commit suicide; decision of the Supreme Court of Hawaii inPerreira v. Corregedore consistent with Donaldson v. YMCA 539 N.W. 2d 789, 792 (Minn.1995)], 557.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Liability / 1997
97.5 Liability for misrepresentation in letters of reference [California Supreme Court held thatevaluators who provide only glowing statements about an individual they know or have reason toknow would be a danger to others may be liable for "affirmative misrepresentation"], 572.
97.7 Recent cases on the ADA and sexual harassment liability [courts reluctant to expand the ADAinto areas never contemplated by Congress; scope of supervisory liability for sexual harassmentor other violations of federal law limited], 574.
97.27 Psychiatric disabilities in the workplace, part I [excerpts from the EEOC "Enforcement Guidance"],623.
97.28 Psychiatric disabilities in the workplace, part II [primary aim of the ADA is to challengestereotypes; people with disabilities are not exempt from reasonable conduct standards; views ofpsychiatrist Kay Redfield Jamison on manic depression and creativity, 626].
97.35 Judicial candor on parents and lawyers, [judges criticize parents and lawyer for bringingvexatious lawsuit against school official], 640.
97.37 Title IX, off-campus assaults, and "hostile environment" theory, [University of Missouri DentalSchool was not responsible for an assault against a student by a clinical instructor, when theassault occurred at the instructor's independent, private dental office; "hostile environment"sexual harassment is not defined by the subjective reactions of alleged victims; the harassmenthas to be "severe or pervasive," from the standpoint of a "reasonable person"; allegedharassment perpetrators have rights too: Decision by a jury in Milwaukee to award $18 million inpunitive damages to a corporate executive fired for "joking" with a female co-worker about asexually provocative theme.], 644.
97.39 The Boston University case: reading past the headlines, part I [excerpts from Gluckenberger et. al v.Boston University], 646.
97.40 Reading past the headlines in the Boston University case, part II [the essence of federal disabilitylaw is individualized assessment; verification and assessment are essential; students shouldhave the opportunity to fail; college curricula need assessment too; the danger of portrayingstudents with learning disabilities as wards of big government], 649.
97.44 Defining limits in sexual harassment law [three recent cases define limits in sexual harassmentlaw, pertaining to off-campus internship assignments, honoring requests for confidentiality bysexual harassment complainants, and institutional liability for peer harassment by students(Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education en banc decision)], 659.
97.49 Limiting liability for computer service providers [In Zeran v. America Online the Fourth Circuitruled that a portion of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that was not struck down by theSupreme Court protects interactive computer service providers from liability for defamatorycommuniations by third party users], 673.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Liability / 1998
98.1 Law and Policy: 1998 [recent data on substance use by students; outline of suggested policiesand procedures; A recommended approach, identified in Booker v. Lehigh University, involvesestablishing reasonable rules or policies and affirming that adult students have ultimateresponsibility for their own conduct], 684.
98.8 Expanding the coverage--and narrowing the scope--of sexual harassment law [in Oncale v.Sundowner Offshore Services the Supreme Court held that same sex harassment in theworkplace can violate Title VII; the holding reiterates that sexual harassment law is designed toprohibit discrimination based on sex, not merely sexually "offensive" behavior or horseplay;"reasonable person" (not "reasonable woman") test used to determine whether conduct "issufficiently severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive workenvironment"], 704.
98.18 Internet service providers shielded by federal law, again [federal district court decision inBlumenthal v. America Online holds that the Communications Decency Act protects Internetservice providers against publisher or distributor liability in defamation cases; right of Virginiastate employees to access sexually explicit material affirmed in Urofsky v. Allen],725.
98.22 Sexual harassment requires discrimination based on sex [Title IX "hostile environment" casedismissed in Bosley v. Kearney: offensive behavior distinguished from discrimination based onsex; list of cases on whether Title IX holds schools accountable for student peer harassment],733.
98.27 Defining the law of sexual harassment [In Gebser et. al. v. Largo Vista Independent SchoolDistrict the Supreme Court held that a school would not be liable for sexual harassment of astudent by a teacher, unless school officials had "actual notice of, and [were] deliberatelyindifferent to, the teacher's misconduct"], 744.
98.28 Sexual harassment in the workplace [In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City ofBoca Raton the Supreme Court held that employers will be liable for the tangible, discriminatoryemployment actions of supervisors. However, in cases where a discriminatory "hostileenvironment" is created by a supervisor--but no tangible employment action is taken against aplaintiff employee--employers may escape liability by proving that they used "reasonable care toprevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior" and that "the plaintiff employeeunreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided bythe employer or to avoid harm otherwise"], 747.
98.32 Evidence of common sense [Seventh Circuit decision in McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corporation;responsibilities of consumers to use common sense; bare conclusions from expert witnesses arenot enough], 754.
98.42 Defining the scope of the ADA, part I [asymptomatic HIV can be a protected disability;"significant threat" defined; no compensatory damages without proof of intentionaldiscrimination; defendant must have notice of the plaintiff's disabling condition; learningdisability does not excuse plaintiff from academic integrity regulations; decision not toallow students with learning disabilities to substitute other courses for a foreign languagerequirement did not violate the ADA], 782.
98.43 Defining the scope of the ADA, Part II [U.S. Civil Rights Commission critical of "misleading"news coverage; employers won 92 percent of ADA cases decided by judges, and 86 percent ofthe cases resolved by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; court critical of "pricklystudent who is using federal law as a weapon;" special issues to address when considering ADAcoverage; when issues of misconduct arise, focus should be on the behavior, not the disability;interview with attorney Jeanne M. Kincaid], 785.
98.44 Planning for December 31, 1999, part I [some Y2k-related problems may be overlooked; a mediastampede may be on the horizon, creating a sense of panic; Y2K not a matter not to be left in thehands of technicians; interview with Bryan Savage, Testing and Compliance Manager for theYear 2000 project of the Government of the District of Columbia], 788.
98.45 Planning for December 31, 1999, part II, 791.
98.49 "Voluntarily endured" hazing protected in Alabama [in Jones v. Kappa Alpha, the AlabamaSupreme Court held that a fraternity pledge assumed the risk of hazing, and could not pursue acause of action against a fraternity or its members for the hazing], 803.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Liability / 1999
99.4 Sexual harassment: Law and policy issues in 1999 [William Kaplin's analysis of two cases recently decided by or pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education; impact of Jones v. Clinton ], 815.
99.9 Peer harassment and the "Violence Against Women Act" [in Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the "Violence Against Women Act" exceeds Congress' power], 830.
99.17 Individual liability for acts of hazing [in Oja v. Grand Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity a New York appellate court held that college fraternity members can be held individually liable for acts of hazing; interview with Douglas Fierberg, an attorney who has represented hazing victims], 848.
99.27 Narrowing the scope of the ADA ["self-corrected" condition may not constitute a disability under the ADA; U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sutton v. United Airlines], 874.
99.28 Judicial limitations on the ADA [impairments must be "substantial"; case by case analysis required; "major life activities" must be affected; U.S. Supreme Court decision in Abertson's v. Kirkingburg], 877.
99.29 Are subjective job interviews legal? [courts will not assume that subjective questions asked during job interviews are likely to disguise discrimination], 879.
99.36 Planning for "reasonable accommodation" [In Wong v. Regents of California the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit held that the School of Medicine at the University of California at Davis failed to properly consider possible "reasonable accommodations" for a student with a learning disability], 895
99.40 "Due process" at private colleges [decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Schaer v. Brandeis, holding that the University was obligated to "substantially" follow procedures specified in its disciplinary code], 904.
99.45 Liability for defamation [recent cases indicate courts are generally reluctant to hold individuals and institutions liable for making good faith reports about students to persons with a lawful interest in the information-even if the information later proves to be inaccurate], 914.
99.46 Expanding the university's duty of care [in Knoll v. Board of Regents the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the University of Nebraska had a duty as a landowner to protect a nineteen-year old student from "foreseeable" acts of unlawful hazing by an off-campus fraternity; interview with law professors Bickel and Lake], 917.
99.50 Responding to student misconduct off-campus, part I [legal authority to discipline students for off-campus misconduct; opinion of the Maryland Attorney General], 925.
99.51 Responding to student misconduct off-campus, part II [defining educational objectives; seeing students as part of an association-on or off-campus; avoiding "country club" judicial systems for upper-middle class youth; giving students a voice in defining policy; interview with Timothy Brooks at the University of Delaware], 927.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Liability / 2000
00.1 More litigation . . .with no end in sight, part I [ Legalistic life taking root in America; Jerold Auerbach on Darwinism and the law; discovering truth is not the objective of the law; growing tension and incivility in legal practice; Lincoln on lawyering], 930.
00.2 More litigation . . . with no end in sight, part II [Reducing liability risks through good management; commentary on risk management by Tom Hustoles], 932.
00.3 What "duties" should colleges assume? [Holding in Bradshaw v. Rawlings contrasted with Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (knowledge by university employees that underage students were being served alcohol leads to duty of care)], 935.
00.4 How should the student-university relationship be defined? [overview of cases related to the institutional duty of care; Review of Bickel and Lake on the "bystander university"; concept of voluntary association], 938.
00.5 Sexual harassment and liability for campus crime [decision in Martin v. Howard University, holding that employer may be held liable for a hostile work environment that is created by a non-employee, including those non-employees who were invited or permitted to remain on an employer's premises; Tanja H. v. Regents of the University of California on limited duty to monitor private social activities in residence halls; Souders v. Lucerno holding that state college campus is not a "public forum" like a street or park: College administrators applauded Souders, but need to remember that the more assertive they are in claiming authority to manage the campus environment, the more likely it is they will be found negligent for failing to exercise it], 941.
00.8 Delays and due process in student conduct cases [decision in Jonathan Cobb et.al v.The Rector and Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia holding that "raw statistics" are not sufficient to demonstrate racial bias; 9-month adjudication is "not unconstitutionally lengthy per se;" no defamation in mistaken letter by university official], 950.
00.9 Avoiding unnecessary delays in student conduct cases [unnecessary delay can be a due process violation; strategies for reducing delay], 953.
00.10 Protecting student privacy—and the college disciplinary process [decision in The Miami University v. the Chronicle of Higher Education rejected claim that personally identifiable information in student disciplinary records should be available to the public; court also found enforceable federal right under FERPA], 955.
00.14 The duty of care and off-campus internships [In Nova Southeastern University v. Bethany Jill Gross the Supreme Court of Florida held that a university may be liable for the injuries suffered by a student assigned to a dangerous off-campus internship; Nova applied concepts articulated in prior cases; suggestions for reducing the risk of liability in off-campus internships; analysis of student-university relationship], 967.
00.19 Defining the limits of congressional power [In Brzonkala v. Morrision the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the private civil remedy provision in the Violence Against Women Act], 980.
00.25 Employer liability for online harassment and defamation [In Tammy S. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an employer who knows about a pattern of retaliatory harassment in a work-related online forum may be liable for taking effective measures to stop it], 999.
00.32 Limiting the "qualified immunity" defense for educators at public institutions [Third Circuit decision in Gruenke v. Seip held that the coach of a high school swimming team lost his qualified immunity from damages under a federal civil rights statute because he failed to appreciate the "contours" of Fourth Amendment law], 1019.
00.33 Limiting the "qualified immunity" defense, Part II [U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wood v. Strickland, warning from Justice Powell about defining "unquestioned constitutional rights"; expanding Section 1983 claims to "supervisory liability"; the importance of being educated about the law—and shifts in public policy], 1022.
00.36 The danger of "zero-tolerance" policies [Holding by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Seal v. Morgan suggests that the elimination of discretion in assessing disciplinary sanctions (especially a failure to consider an accused student's intent) may violate substantive due process; danger of eliminating intent requirements in plagiarism and other academic dishonesty cases],1032.
00.42 Liability for suicide: Failure to notify parents of suicide threats, [In Jain v. State of Iowa the Supreme Court of Iowa held that no "special relationship" exists in the student/university relationship requiring a change in the general doctrine that third parties are not responsible for a person's decision to commit suicide], 1049.
00.43 Preventing suicide [Maryland appellate decision in Eisel v. Board of Education contrasted with Jain v. State of Iowa; data on youth suicide; new research on suicide prevention; danger of under reaction to suicide threats ], 1052.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Liability / 2001
00.1 More litigation . . .with no end in sight [Legalistic life taking root in America; Jerold Auerbach on Darwinism and the law; discovering truth is not the objective of the law; growing tension and incivility in legal practice; Lincoln on lawyering], 930.
01.15 Expanding the duty of care: Faculty academic malfeasance. [Johnson v. Schmitz, 119 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Conn. 2000): Relationship between student and university is contractual; courts may entertain a cause of action for institutional breach of a contract for educational services; court allows plaintiff to pursue the claim that "Yale [University] failed to deliver on its express and implied contractual duties to safeguard students from academic misconduct"; commercialization of higher education is likely to produce many more disputes between graduate students and faculty members about intellectual property], 1094.
01.17 When should job search records be destroyed? [Title VII and ADA regulations requiring the retention of "all records pertaining to employment decisions for a period of two years."], 2000.
01.24 Defamation, invasion of privacy, and fundamental fairness in sexual misconduct cases. [Review of the Washington State Supreme Court decision in John Doe v. Gonzaga University; subsequently reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court], 2017.
01.47 Tim Brooks on "suicide: the aftermath." [Administrative responses after a suicide has occurred], 2057.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Liability / 2002
02.1 Finding alternatives to legalistic life. [Disgust with the expense and cultural impact of the American tort system], 2072.
02.21 Reflections about the Shin suicide case at M.I.T. [What Elizabeth Shin may have needed most was an adult "friend" who cared about her as a person, not simply as a "student" or a "client"], 3014.
02.24 Liability for defaming a student [University administrator who disagreed with the dismissal of a criminal case, and made a public statement that theaccused student "definitely committed a sexual battery,from the information that was gathered," may be liablefor defamation; December 20, 2001 decision of Court ofAppeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District, in Mallory v.Ohio University; law and policy quiz question], 3023. 02.25 Liability standards in teacher/student sexual harassment cases [As reiterated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Oden v. Northern Marianas College (No. 16594, March 22, 2002), acollege will be liable in monetary damages if a college official who had authority to address the alleged harassment had actual notice of the harassment andwas deliberately indifferent to the teacher's misconduct; law and policy quiz], 3026.
02.28 Two key decisions on FERPA [the U.S. SupremeCourt in Gonzaga University v. Doe held that individualscannot bring private lawsuits under a federal civil tights statute to enforce FERPA rights], 3034.
02.29 FERPA and student disciplinary records, part I [In U.S. v. Miami University (6th Cir, 00-3518, June 27,2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuitheld that institutions of higher education are barred from releasing student disciplinary records to the public, except as expressly permitted under FERPA], 3036.
02.30 FERPA and student disciplinary records, part II [Law and policy quiz on latest FERPA decisions], 3039.
02.33 "Medical laypeople" and liability for suicide [Liabilitycould result, if a court finds a "duty," depending on thesuicide's foreseeability, its likelihood, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it, and the potential consequences of placing that burden on the defendant; law and policy quiz], 3048.
02.40 The duty to prevent suicide [Virginia federal districtcourt decision in Schieszler v. Ferrum College], 3060.
02.43 Establishing constitutional standards for student activity fee systems [Seventh Circuit holding in Southworth v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System that public universities must employmandatory activity fee allocation systems that protect viewpoint neutrality, including a mandate that decisionmakers not possess unbridled discretion; (law and policy quiz)], 3070.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Liability / 2003
03.2 Defining the duty of care to university employees [In Severson v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University(Ind.App.,2002) it was held that Purdue University did not owe a duty of care to an RA who was killed by astudent the RA had reported for a drug offense], 3099.
03.23 Limiting "the heckler's veto" in schools [Judicialreluctance to support a "heckler's veto" was reiteratedin an April 18, 2003 federal district court decision in Boyd County High School Gay Straight Alliance v. Board of Education], 3148.
03.25 Defamation in campus disciplinary proceedings and on the Internet [May 6, 2003 North Dakota Supreme Court decision in Wagner v. Mishkin (2003 ND 69) affirming a $3,000,000 judgment againsta college student for "libel, slander, and intentionalinterference with a business relationship" in a lawsuit initiated by one of her professors], 3153.
03.33 Liability for injuries during school sponsoredactivities [A California appellate court in Stockinger v. Feather River Community College concluded thateducators are not insurers of their students' safety. With some notable exceptions such as a duty to provide adequate security on campus most courts remainreluctant to impose a duty on colleges to protect adult students from the consequences of their own bad judgment], 3174.
03.39 Personal e-mail and "open records" laws [In Times Publishing Company and State of Florida v. City of Clearwater the Supreme Court of Florida rejected theapplication of "open records" laws to personal employee e-mail sent through city computer networks], 3189.
03.46 Rejecting the corporate style [The management style of Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and former president of Brown University; Nannerl O. Keohane on not following corporate pay scales], 3205.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Liability / 2004
04.12 Judicial deference to academic decisionmaking [In Raethz v. Aurora University the court overturned a judgment awarded to a student plaintiff who was able to demonstrate that she was dismissed from a graduate program in social work without receiving all of the benefits specified in the university's social work handbook], 3238.
04.22 When research projects go bad [164 Mulberry Street Corp. v. Columbia University: academic research project involving false claims of food poisoning may result in tort liability], 3255.
04.29 Institutional liability for admitting convicted felons, Part I [Key case review: Eiseman v. State of New York (1987): "colleges today in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students . . . imposing liability on the College for failing to screen out or detect potential danger signals in [admitted felons] would hold the college to a higher duty than society's experts in making such predictions . . ."], 3276.
04.30 Institutional liability for admitting convicted felons, Part II [Key case review: Eiseman v. State of New York (1987): "colleges today in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students . . . imposing liability on the College for failing to screen out or detect potential danger signals in [admitted felons] would hold the college to a higher duty than society's experts in making such predictions . . ."], 3276.
04.46 Liability for alcohol abuse and campus crime: Advice to residence life staff members, 3316.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
