Hill v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff, a UDC employee, stated a Section 1983 claim against the UDC Board of Trustees
• dismissing a discrimination claim based on the plaintiff’s concession that the claim was not exhausted
• employee's complaints that university was unlawfully compromising student privacy rights was matter of public concern because it \is the type of conduct that the tax-paying community would want to know\
• employee’s complaints that university was unlawfully compromising student privacy rights was matter of public concern because it “is the type of conduct that the tax-paying community would want to know”
• “[T]he factual detail required to survive a motion to dismiss can be quite limited.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).