archive-org.com » ORG » A » AAUP.ORG

Total: 1208

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Burbank v. Rumsfeld, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17509 (E.D. Pa. 2004) | AAUP
    Civility Conflicts of Interest Collective Bargaining Hiring and Promotions Discrimination Diversity Affirmative Action Ethics Faculty Work Workload Family Work Grading Graduate Students The Academic Bill of Rights Minority Serving Institutions Post Tenure Review Retirement Sexual Diversity Gender Identity Teaching Evaluation Tenure Women in Higher Education Reports Publications AAUP Policies Reports Academe Economic Status Report Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Burbank v Rumsfeld 2004 U S Dist LEXIS 17509 E D Pa 2004 The University of Pennsylvania Law School promulgated an anti discrimination policy that limited its services to employers who did not discriminate based on sexual orientation After the Air Force stated that the policy did not comply with the Solomon Amendment and threatened the school s federal funding the school decided not to enforce the policy against military recruiters The court held that the law school had standing to assert violations of the First Amendment rights Pending before

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/burbank-v-rumsfeld-2004-us-dist-lexis-17509-ed-pa-2004 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) and; Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) | AAUP
    Education and many other higher education organizations and has joined briefs with these organizations at every level since The briefs emphasized the educational benefits of racial diversity in higher education among faculty and students and urged the court to follow the 1978 U S Supreme Court Bakke decision On June 23 2003 the U S Supreme Court finally issued its much awaited decisions in these two cases The Court issued its Grutter decision first a 5 4 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O Connor In it the Court endorsed Justice Powell s decision in Regents of the University of California v Bakke finding diversity in higher education to be a compelling state interest and upholding the law school admissions program The Court noted the individuality of the review in the law school and held that race can be considered as a plus factor in admissions if it is considered in the context of a highly individualized holistic review of each applicant s file giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment In contrast however in the 6 to 3 Gratz decision Justice O Connor joined the opinion s author Justice William Rehnquist and four other justices in striking down Michigan s undergraduate admissions program Importantly the Gratz decision upheld the concept of affirmative action and diversity as a compelling interest But it also struck down Michigan s undergraduate admissions process finding its award of 20 points out of 150 to underrepresented minority applicants solely because of race to be insufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity that respondents claim justifies their program The decisions also represented an important statement in the academic freedom arena Not only did the Court uphold educational diversity as a justification for affirmative action

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/gratz-v-bollinger-539-us-244-2003-and-grutter-v-bollinger-539-us-306-2003 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) | AAUP
    by individuals for monetary damages under the family leave provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act FMLA which allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a sick family member The district court in this case granted the university s motion for summary judgment ruling that state employers are immune from FMLA suits The Ninth Circuit reversed ruling that Hibbs can sue the state for allegedly denying him leave to care for his sick wife 273 F 3d 844 9th Cir 2001 The court ruled that Congress acted within its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause and remanded the case for further proceedings In so doing it found that the FMLA should be treated differently from both the ADA and ADEA because the FMLA is aimed at remedying gender discrimination which is subject to heightened scrutiny On June 24 2002 the U S Supreme Court agreed to hear this case In October 2002 the AAUP joined a brief submitted by the National Women s Law Center and written by O Melveny Myers which argues that Congress validly exercised its authority in enacting the FMLA because the FMLA remedies gender discrimination by working to eradicate the stereotypes that are both a cause and a result of unconstitutional gender discrimination The brief further asserts that Congress authority extends to abrogate state sovereign immunity from damages and that while monetary damages under the FMLA are limited they remain absolutely cruciall to the statute s effective enforcement AAUP participated in this case because the Association is deeply concerned that allowing public entities such as state universities to be immune from the FMLA will impair the ability of professors and other academic professionals to protect themselves from gender discrimination in

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/nevada-department-human-resources-v-hibbs-538-us-721-2003 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) | AAUP
    Women in Higher Education Reports Publications AAUP Policies Reports Academe Economic Status Report Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v Garrett 531 U S 356 2001 This U S Supreme Court case raised the issue of whether the sovereign immunity clause of the Eleventh Amendment prohibits public employees including faculty members from suing public institutions including colleges and universities under the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA for damages In August 2000 AAUP joined a brief authored by the National Employment Lawyers Association NELA which asserted that an extensive record demonstrates public sector employment discrimination against the disabled AAUP is concerned that holding public entities such as state universities immune from the ADA would impair the ability of professors to protect themselves from disability discrimination in the workplace Status In February 2001 the U S Supreme Court in a 5 4 decision ruled

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/board-trustees-university-alabama-v-garrett-531-us-356-2001 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Adams v. Florida Power Corporation, 255 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) | AAUP
    Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Adams v Florida Power Corporation 255 F 3d 1322 11th Cir 2001 This case addresses the availability of the disparate impact method of proving discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA In this case former employees of a utility company challenged a corporate reorganization in which more than 70 percent of the employees terminated were at least 40 years old The trial court ruled that disparate impact claims may not be brought under the ADEA and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed On December 3 2001 the Eleventh Circuit granted certiorari In January 2002 AAUP joined a brief authored by the American Association of Retired Persons AARP which argues that denying the disparate impact method of proving age discrimination will thwart the intent of Congress insulate conduct Congress has deemed extremely harmful to both individuals and the national economy and undermine the core civil

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/adams-v-florida-power-corporation-255-f3d-1322-11th-cir-2001 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Linnemeir v. Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, 155 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (N.D. Ind. 2001); Linnemeir v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University, 260 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2001) | AAUP
    Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Linnemeir v Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne 155 F Supp 2d 1044 N D Ind 2001 Linnemeir v Board of Trustees of Purdue University 260 F 3d 757 7th Cir 2001 This case involved efforts by some taxpayers and Indiana state legislators to compel a state university the Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne IPFW to halt the campus production of a controversial play Terrence McNally s Corpus Christi The plaintiffs alleged that the play is an undisguised attack on Christianity and the Founder of Christianity Jesus Christ and therefore the performance of the play on a public university campus violated the separation of church and state under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment In July 2001 the Indiana district court denied the request by the plaintiffs to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the production of the play ruling that the university s on campus production of the play did not violate the Establishment Clause A copy of the federal district court opinion is available at http laws findlaw com 7th 013002 html AAUP prepared an amicus brief pdf in August 2001 arguing that allowing the plaintiffs to interfere with the faculty s approval of a student selected play to fulfill academic graduation requirements would have violated the First Amendment protections of free expression including the First Amendment right of individual professors to academic freedom Furthermore the Association argued in its brief that the performance in a state university theater of play with a religious theme even one that may offend religious beliefs would not violate the Establishment Clause Status In August 2001 the Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiffs request for a stay pending their appeal from the district court s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction The

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/linnemeir-v-indiana-university-purdue-university-fort-wayne-155-f-supp-2d-1044-nd-ind-2001 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Ga. 2000) | AAUP
    Publications AAUP Policies Reports Academe Economic Status Report Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Johnson v Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia 106 F Supp 2d 1362 S D Ga 2000 In yet another case challenging affirmative action in admissions three rejected white female applicants for admission to the University of Georgia sued the state seeking admission and damages based on violations of the Civil Rights Act In July 2000 the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the University s admissions policy was unconstitutional The court found that under the equal protection doctrine diversity does not rise to the level of a compelling government interest because 1 there is no evidence that significant educational benefits are derived from racial and gender diversity 2 there is no principled stopping point for taking race into account and 3 the argued compelling interest is based on stereotypes because it assumes that race and or gender are a proxy for viewpoint or experience As in the Michigan case AAUP joined an amicus brief to the Eleventh Circuit with the American Council on Education and many other higher education organizations emphasizing the educational benefits of diversity Status In August 2001 the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision upholding district court decision although for slightly different reasons The decision is available at http caselaw lp findlaw com cgi bin getcase pl court 11th navby case no 0014340OPN The court noted that to pass constitutional muster an affirmative action

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/johnson-v-board-regents-university-system-georgia-106-f-supp-2d-1362-sd-ga-2000 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) | AAUP
    Tenure Women in Higher Education Reports Publications AAUP Policies Reports Academe Economic Status Report Compensation Survey Bulletin of the AAUP The Redbook Journal of Academic Freedom AAUP Bookstore News AAUP in the News AAUP Updates For the Media Get Involved Upcoming Events Local Toolkit Issue Campaigns Find Chapters Conferences Start a Chapter I Need Help With Workplace Issues Understanding Terms and Abbreviations Responding to Financial Crisis You are here Home Kimel v Florida Board of Regents 528 U S 62 2000 This U S Supreme Court case raised the issue of whether the sovereign immunity clause of the Eleventh Amendment prohibits public employees including faculty members from suing public institutions including colleges and universities under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA for damages The Supreme Court case consolidated three cases two of which involved professors In Kimel v State of Florida Board of Regents a chemistry professor along with 35 other current and former faculty members and librarians from different Florida higher education institutions claimed that the universities had discriminated against them based on age In MacPherson v University of Montevallo two associate professors alleged that the university discriminated against them and other older faculty members by treating their younger colleagues more favorably in terms of salaries and promotions In July 1999 AAUP joined a brief authored by the American Association of Retired Persons AARP which asserted that states are not immune from such suits for damages AAUP was concerned that holding public entities such as state universities immune from the ADEA would impair the ability of professors to protect themselves from age discrimination in the workplace Status In January 2000 the Court in a 5 4 decision ruled that public employees such as public university professors may not sue public institutions including colleges and universities under the ADEA

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/brief/kimel-v-florida-board-regents-528-us-62-2000 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •