The University Of Michigan The Plaintiff Respondent Scott Ewing

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

Question: Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment for the employer by the in regards to the four actions brought against Indiana University by the plaintiff Gawley? Did Indiana University violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

I am writing to appeal my academic dismissal from Chamberlain College of Nursing. I understand that I have taken the NR 302 Health Assessment course two times at Chamberlain College of Nursing and have not been successful, which led to my dismissal. Receiving a dismissal letter on October 30, 2015, through my email was not a surprise to me, but I was upset with myself for pain that I caused to myself. This is my fault and I am fully responsible for this failure. I am writing this appeal letter to explain the reason of my failure and to appeal to you to please consider reinstating me for the spring session.

The meeting continued with board member Jason Hopp presenting Dr. Matthew Flannery, formerly the principal of Shiloh Hills Elementary School, for a roll call vote to approve him as the new Assistant Superintendent of the WIlson School District. Mr. Hopp spoke for approximately two minutes about the credentials, reputation, and record of quality performance that Dr. Flannery has documented during his time with the district. A five-year contract was approved on an 8-1 vote, with Mr. Martin voting “no”. It may be worth observing that Mr. Martin is known as the “no man” of the current board, and often tows one of the more conservative lines of all board members. One can speculate that he may have felt

Seven years later, the Supreme Court, in Ewing, revisited the question of whether a university student has a property interest in his education. In Ewing, the University of Michigan dismissed a student for failing an

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was argued on October 12, 1977 and decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 26, 1978. It was questioned if the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having an affirmative action policy that led to repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to UC medical school at Davis.

In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

During 1978, Alan Bakke was denied acceptance into the Medical School at the University of California. Bakke had a higher grade point average and higher test scores than other students who got accepted. Under the circumstances, Bakke stated he was denied acceptance because of his race. Not only did Bakke get denied because of his race, was a white male. Immediately he noticed and took the case to court. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution stated Bakkes rights being the Equal Protection Clause. (Bakke v. University of California)

During October 2016, Luis Sanchez Platt College Riverside Admissions director, shredded Ms. Johnson’s 2016 - 2017 Bachelors Studies enrollment agreement documents. In violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1232g § 99.1099.12 Schools may not destroy records if request for access is pending.

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

2.) When the schools go to re-apply next year the board will be the same board as this year and they will keep in mind how the schools handled the after math and the lawsuit. So likely next year it'll get turned down again.

Shahmaleki has stated that his interest is strong, but has no indicated what property interest he believes the law entitles him too or whether the University violated that interest. Furthermore, Shahmaleki does not provide, which Kansas law provides him a property interest. Under Goss, Shahmaleki must base any property interest claim in state law and he has failed to do so. The Defendants cannot find a state law that provides property interest that Shahmaleki is alleging. There is also nothing in the Graduate Student Handbook or elsewhere creating an “unqualified promise” to Shahmaleki that he had an unconditional or contract right to remain in graduate school, despite his repeated violation of the threat management policy. Count I and II of Shahmaleki’s claims rest on the assumption that he has a property interest, but he has neither shown nor does the law provide such a property interest in continued enrollment at a Kansas college. Without such an interest, both count I and II should be dismissed because they have failed to allege a sufficient claim under the

A student who is homeschooled would like to participate in basketball season at the local high school. The student meets the zone eligibility requirements to attend the school. The student does not have a GPA, but has a portfolio of schoolwork that has been reviewed and assessed by a certified teacher, and was given an evaluation from his previous county before moving to Blue County. The district decides that the student is ineligible for participation in basketball season.