Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.
New Class Action Lawsuit Filed by Student-Athletes Challenging $20.5 Million Annual Cap on NIL Payments
Two college football players have filed a proposed class action lawsuit in California against the NCAA and four major athletic conferences challenging the House v. NCAA settlement, which was approved by a federal court judge. The new complaint alleges that the settlement, which imposes a $20.5 million annual limit per institution on name, image and likeness (NIL) payments and imposes further restrictions on booster and other collective payments to athletes, violates federal and state antitrust laws (Talanoa v. NCAA (N.D. Cal., No. 3:26-cv-05562, Complaint filed 6/9/26)).
The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA and the athletic conferences knew the settlement further violated California, federal and other state antitrust laws. The lawsuit seeks treble damages and an injunction.
Former Tenured Faculty Member Loses Discrimination Complaint – Appeals Court Affirms That Case Was Dismissed Because Student Complaints Are Not Discrimination
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court judge’s dismissal of a former tenured Spanish professor who was terminated following student complaints over her classroom teaching methods. The student complaints included criticism of her using the word “transvestite” in a negative way. The appeals court affirmed the trial judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff was terminated because students disliked her teaching methods and possibly her personality but there was no evidence tying the university’s decision to any discriminatory conduct (Crawford v. Salve Regina University (1st Cir. 24-1656, opinion issued 6/11/26)).
HUD Modifies Emotional Support Animal Regulations Giving Colleges and Universities More Defenses in Dorm-Related Emotional Support Cases
In May 2026, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) modified its rules on emotional support animals. It rescinded prior guidance under the Fair Housing Act and modified the standard it applies to acceptable emotional support animals. It will now apply the more restrictive Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to animal cases. Colleges and universities will no longer be presumptively expected by HUD to allow students to keep untrained emotional support animals in campus housing.
HUD will only recommend charges be filed where a student’s claim restricts their ability to have a service animal to provide disability-related assistance to the complainants. Untrained emotional support animals will no longer be considered a presumptively reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. A student’s private right of action and state and local laws are unaffected by this rule change. It does, however, give institutions more flexibility in considering requests involving untrained animals.
New and Revised Draft Legislation Regulating College Sports Clears the Senate Commerce Committee
In the wake of the abandonment of the proposed SCORE Act to regulate student-athlete payments and antitrust immunity, a new bill, the Protect College Sports Act of 2026, was passed by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 18, 2026, with some bipartisan support by a vote of 19 to 9. The new bill would grant student-athletes the right to make money from their NIL, extend revenue sharing among colleges, and require colleges to provide medical coverage to student-athletes. The bill would also grant limited antitrust exemptions to colleges, replacing the broad antitrust exemption contained in the former SCORE Act.
The bill would prevent athletic conferences with more than $700 million in annual revenue from acquiring another conference. This would apply to the Big 10, SEC, Big 12 and the Atlantic Coast Conference. This is the first of a number of hurdles the legislation must clear.
Former Professor Settles First Amendment Retaliation Case for $1.9 Million After She Was Placed on Administrative Leave Following Social Media Comments
A former University of Tennessee, Knoxville professor, who was placed on administrative leave with pay after posting about Charlie Kirk’s assassination on social media, has settled the lawsuit for $1.9 million with an agreement that she would not be reinstated to her position at the university. The professor, who is an anthropologist, posted a private Facebook statement after the Kirk assassination. The post was later widely shared by a conservative columnist.
A federal district court judge had rejected the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Nonetheless, it appears the parties have reached a settlement to avoid continuing litigation (Shirinian v. Plowman (E.D. Tenn. No. 3:25-cv-00528, settlement notice 6/29/26)).
Because of the unprecedented and fast-changing pronouncements of the new presidential administration and the intervening court challenges, the developments contained in this blog post are subject to change. Before acting on the legal issues discussed here, please consult your college or university counsel and, as always, act with caution.