Harvard Law School Coalition for Civil Rights v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that students were incidental, rather than intended, beneficiaries of their professors’ employment contracts
• affirming dismissal of a MERA claim because the “complaint failed to allege that the plaintiffs had a contract with the law school”
• rejecting student standing, albeit under statutes not at issue in today’s case, to challenge the allegedly discriminatory faculty hiring practices of Harvard Law School
• construing G.L. c. 151B, § 9, which authorizes “any person claiming to be aggrieved” by an unlawfully discriminatory practice to bring suit
• \It is clear from the statute and case law that an individual has to be within the employment relationship.\
• law students had no standing to sue over school’s failure to hire minority faculty in violation of § 102 of MERA, where students did not “allege that the . . . school discriminate^] against them ... in providing contractual benefits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).