Cases & Developments

Opinion Vacating and Remanding. Plaintiff, a philosophy lecturer at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, brought claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against the university after it declined to renew his contract based on the disruption caused by inflammatory statements made by plaintiff in his private capacity that were included in a New York Times article. The District Court granted summary judgement for the university holding that plaintiff’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment because the university’s interest in “mitigating the disruption caused by [p]laintiff’s speech . . . outweighs [p]laintiff’s interest in its expression.” On appeal, the Third Circuit disagreed, finding the “minimal evidence of disruption” cited by the university “differ[ed] little from the ordinary operation of a public university” and therefore could not outweigh interest in plaintiff’s speech. The court found the university provided insufficient evidence that student disapproval of plaintiff’s speech resulted in a disruption, noting the university “never identified the exact number of calls or complaints . . . nor any details about the students’ concerns” nor “any evidence of specific student protests, upheaval, or unwillingness to abide by university policies.” The court also rejected the university’s claim that letters in the school paper from faculty members denouncing plaintiff were evidence of a disruption, instead finding they reflected “precisely the sort of reasoned debate that distinguishes speech from distraction.” As to the university’s claimed interest in “providing a non-denigrating environment” and concern that plaintiff’s views could “undermine the pedagogical relationship between teacher and student,” the court found that the university failed to point to anything in the record supporting its determination. In conclusion, the court held that “[on] balance, the disruption the university described does not outweigh even minimal interest in [plaintiff’s] speech” and therefore, the district court erred in finding that the plaintiff’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment.