SAE 738 Final Examination Heat University Case Study Logan Franklin The first issue is whether or not

Heat University (HU) discriminated in admissions on the basis of a protected status. Discrimination can be disparate treatment, in which a decision is made to treat one group of people different than another group of people. An example of this is admissions preferences for minority students. It can also be disparate impact, in which a decision results in favorable treatment of one group over another, whether or not the decision itself discriminatory. Additionally, a university must have a compelling interest in order to legally discriminate on the basis of race. HU could claim that they have a compelling interest in increasing diversity because of the low percentage of black students. However, having different criteria for black students, which ensures automatic admission, could be deemed as disparate treatment. Automatic is the key word in this scenario. Having automatic admission based on different criteria for black students compared to other students is disparate treatment and constitutes discrimination on the basis of a protected class. The second issue is whether or not the Students for Freedom sit-in constituted a substantial disruption of the orderly operation of Heat University, which would allow the university to stop the demonstration. To classify as a substantial disruption three criteria must be met: 1) there must be more than merely a suspicion or fear of possible disruption, 2) there must be material disruption of coursework or substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others, and 3) only the disruption caused by the speech or protest can be evaluated, not the disruption caused by a counter-protest. The demonstration made it virtually impossible to get in and out of offices on the second floor of Carrington. This constitutes more than a suspicion or fear of

disruption and a substantial disorder of the rights of others. Therefore, the demonstration constituted a substantial disruption of the orderly conduct of HU, giving HU the right to limit the speech in this scenario. The third issue is whether or not the speech by Students for Freedom qualified as incitement. The particular speech in question is the chant of Fuck the darkies. Incitement is advocacy of the use of force that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. One test for incitement is whether a reasonable person would be so offended as to react through physical action. Over 500 students chanting Fuck the Darkies! would elicit a strong emotional reaction from anyone in the vicinity. It could be argued that a reasonable person would react with physical action in this instance. In that case, the speech would constitute incitement and could legally be prohibited. The fourth issue is whether or not the university is liable for damages caused to students by the security officers when they broke up the demonstration. The university could possibly be sued for x counts of battery as well as breach of licensee duty of care. It has been previously established that the university had the legal right to end the demonstration by the students because of the substantial disruption and incitement. However, the university made no effort to peaceably end the demonstration by asking the students to leave. Under the licensee duty of care the university has the duty not to harm the licensees and to warn them of any harm that could come to them. When the university sent security officers armed with tear gas grenades and billy clubs, they breached this duty. The university is liable for the damages inflicted under the duty of care. The university is likely also liable for battery. Battery occurs when a person brings about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with another person. The security officers made contact with the students multiple times in a very harmful manner. For this reason the

university is liable for battery. Both torts could stick on the university, but likely only one would be used in the end, as one would be enough to cause the university to pay damages to the students. The next issue is whether or not the university has a duty to pay the fine issued by the city. Under city law, HU violated the no burn ordinance which carries with it a $1,000 fine. However, under the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine, IHEs cannot be regulated by a lesser government entity that has only the powers delegated to it by the state, as long as they are performing a governmental function, not a proprietary function. A fireworks celebration would not qualify as a governmental function. Therefore, in this case, Heat University would need to pay the fine. The next issue in this case is whether or not the university is liable for negligence for the fire damage done to 23 students cars. Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The maintenance worker, Droolstra, dropped a still-lit match into a patch of parched grass. It was also knowledge that the city was under a no-burn order. A reasonably prudent person would have ensured that the match was extinguished and disposed of in a proper manner, especially under the circumstances of a no-burn order in the city, which is normally issued in particularly dry conditions. As a result, Heat University is liable for the damage done to the students cars. The next important issue at hand is whether or not Heat University could be liable for sexual harassment in the case of Birdman sexually assaulting Dwayne. A university is liable for student-on-student sexual harassment if 1) a hostile environment exists at the school, 2) the school knows or should have known of the harassment, and 3) fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. For a hostile environment to exist, the harassment must be severe,

pervasive, and objectively offensive. The case of sexual assault is one that is undoubtedly severe and offensive sexual harassment. The university is likely to find out about the incident either from Dwayne or hear about it when talking to Chris Bosch about his accident. In order to avoid liability, HU must take immediate and appropriate corrective action against Birdman. The university should sanction Birdman because the sexual assault was obvious and flagrant. Dwayne specifically stated, this need to stop right now. The final issue that I will consider is whether or not the university is liable for Chris Boschs injury under a breach of the duty of care. Bosch was a prospective student on campus for a tour. This would make him an invitee. Under the Duty of Care doctrine, the owner of the land owes a duty to make the property safe by conducting reasonable inspections and fixing dangerous conditions. In not fixing the broken sprinkler, HU breached their duty of care. However, under Comparative and Contributory Negligence a plaintiffs claim may be barred, or a defendants liability may be partially reduced if the plaintiffs injury was caused by their own negligence. Therefore, the universitys liability would likely be reduced because the injury was caused, in part, due to Boschs own negligence because he was not watching where he was walking.

Word Count: 1190