The Kaplan Lawsuit Against the University of Louisville
In February, television producer Aaron Kaplan filed a lawsuit against the University of Louisville. The suit was in response to a Petition for Instruction filed by Elizabeth M. Kaplan, the widow of Joe Kaplan. Mr. and Mrs. Kaiplan were both named executors of Joe’s estate and trust, and Aaron Kaplan is therefore considered the executor. According to the petition, Kaplan acted as trustee of Joe’s estate without due process.
In February 2017, the President of UofL recommended the termination of Kaplan’s tenured position.
The Board of Trustees of the university subsequently terminated the position. After the termination, Ms. Kaplan filed her operative complaint, alleging procedural due process violations and deprivation of academic freedom. The UofL moved to dismiss the federal claims. The district court denied the motion. In May 2018, Kaplan appealed to the Supreme Court.
The suit was filed after Kaplan discovered that former employees of the school were employed by Dalton and copied confidential documents. The lawsuit claims that the employees shared confidential documents with Dalton’s manager. Another former employee, who later joined the company, revealed trade secrets to an affiliate, who then met with the owners of Dalton to start a rival CFA firm. The EEOC has already settled hundreds of discrimination cases against companies like Kaplan.
The court found that the lawsuit against Kaplan was a result of illegal actions by the company.
The company has admitted to changing grades, enrolling students who weren’t qualified for the program, and faking legal documents. To succeed in this claim, the plaintiffs must prove that the illegal actions induced the borrower to take out the loan. Otherwise, the Borrower’s Defense is not applicable, and the lawsuit will fail. The applicant must pay all the debts incurred and recoup all damages.
The trial court affirmed Kaplan’s decision but did not rule on the merits of the claim. The court first considered Kaplan’s standing to file the suit, which requires that it show that Kaplan had suffered an injury. But in the end, the trial court held that there was no legal basis for this suit. A lawyer for Kaplan’s clients has to show that the company acted legally. If the lawyer is not willing to acknowledge the lawsuit, it may be difficult for the lender to proceed with the case.
The Kaplan lawsuit against the CFA firm was based on claims of improper hiring practices by its employees.
In addition to the improper hiring practices, it also allegedly hired unqualified instructors who stole its intellectual property. The defendants were required to hire five of these unqualified instructors for its CFA program. Despite these claims, the Court upheld the lower court’s decision. This result led to a settlement between the two companies.
The trial court’s ruling was overturned on the basis that Kaplan had no standing to file suit. This was the case even though Kaplan’s employees had not breached the contract. They had allegedly stolen their trade secrets by sharing them with other employees. After Dalton obtained the information, Kaplan decided to sue the defendants and halt the competition. In a matter of mere monetary damages, the company had to settle out of court.
The Kaplan lawsuit alleged that Kaplan and his wife secretly installed audio-video recording devices in their master bedroom closets.
One of these devices was aimed at Elizabeth Kaplan while she was undressed. The plaintiffs cite diagrams of both the closets in which the cameras were located. The video surveillance footage of her closet was allegedly obtained by the defendants’ employees. Although the trial court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, the case remains in the courts.
In the lawsuit, Kaplan is denying a student’s application for financial aid. It has been accused of misrepresentation, false advertising, and false accounting. The school also fails to refund loans to customers, resulting in a negative impact on the public. However, the plaintiffs believe that the settlement will enable the student to receive compensation. In addition to a legal remedy, the plaintiffs are also entitled to restitution of any damages that may result from their actions.