Cases & Developments

Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, the former Director of Student Conduct at Central Connecticut State University, sued the university alleging he was wrongfully discharged following his arrest for domestic violence and three felony charges. Plaintiff claimed that his termination was based on concerns he raised with the university president regarding the university’s handling of Title IX cases from over a decade ago, which he expressed just five days before he was placed on leave, and asserted that his speech was protected from employer discipline. The court found that plaintiff’s leave of absence and subsequent termination were not related to the speech he expressed during his meeting with the president, but rather, based on his pending criminal charges. The court also found that plaintiff’s speech was not protected speech under the Connecticut State Constitution and further, that plaintiff’s speech was not a matter of public concern as plaintiff relied “entirely on his conclusory perception of mismanagement” and thus no genuine issue of material fact was present. 

Opinion Affirming Denial of Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandate. Appellant, a tenured professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the court to require the university to set aside sanctions against him after he was terminated following a disciplinary hearing for abuse of power and violations of intellectual honesty.  Appellant alleged that the decision to terminate him was arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, and that the university breached confidentiality by relying on a former settlement agreement that was allegedly time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the writ, noting that a university has “broad discretion” in determining disciplinary decisions and is “entitled to deference,” and reasoning that because “[t]he sanction imposed on appellant was well within those permitted by [u]niversity policy,” there was no abuse of discretion. 

Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff, a former tenured professor of psychology at Berea College, brought discrimination, retaliation, and contract claims against the College after it terminated him for publishing a survey about a series of “hypothetical” scenarios mirroring a recent Title IX investigation that found his department chair responsible for creating a hostile work environment for three female colleagues. Plaintiff also brought defamation, false light, and retaliation claims against the faculty advisor to the Student Government Association (SGA), after the advisor warned student leaders to stay out of the controversy and to forego awarding plaintiff a student service award. The district court granted summary judgment to the College on all claims, and specific to the defamation claim, held that the advisor was shielded by qualified common interest privilege in his role as an SGA advisor who provided relevant information to student leaders. The Sixth Circuit conducted a de novo review and affirmed the district court’s judgment on all claims except the defamation claim. In reaching a different conclusion on the latter claim, the Circuit found the district court erred as the claimed privilege is “not an absolute defense” and may be negated if the speaker either “abused” the privilege or acted with “malevolence or ill will,” which are questions for a jury to consider. It also noted that the alleged statements could be viewed as abusive and that the comments might be animated by interests beyond the role as an advisor, insofar as one of the three female colleagues in the underlying Title IX conflict was allegedly the advisor’s wife. Accordingly, the Court remanded for further proceedings on the defamation claim. 

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the College. Plaintiff, a former manager of plant operations at Cuyahoga Community College, brought contract and wrongful termination claims against the College after he was terminated for engaging in multiple inappropriate deals with College vendors, including for a $50,000 personal loan and the installation of cabinetry in his vacation home in the U.S. Virgin Islands, in violation of Ohio Ethics Laws and the College’s Code of Conduct. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the College on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the Court of Appeals of Ohio found that plaintiff’s letter of appointment made clear that he was an at-will employee and that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of material fact as to whether he was terminated for good cause or whether the college had paid him all sums due in his final paycheck. The court also affirmed summary judgment in favor of the College on plaintiff’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy in retaliation for his 2018 report of theft from the College’s metal recycling program, noting that his contract was renewed again in 2019 before his termination in 2020.