Cases & Developments

Plaintiff, a professor at the University of Washington, sued the university for First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, and brought a facial challenge against the university’s nondiscrimination policy as overbroad and vague after the university investigated and reprimanded him following plaintiff’s statement on his syllabus mocking the university’s recommended land acknowledgement statement. The district court granted summary judgment for the university on plaintiff’s retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims, finding the university had a legitimate interest in preventing disruption caused by plaintiff’s statement; and dismissed plaintiff’s challenge to the nondiscrimination policy, construing the policy to be limited in its reach and therefore neither overbroad nor vague. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, directing that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiff on his First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims. The court found that (1) the university had taken adverse action against the plaintiff based on the views he expressed in his syllabus statement including subjecting him to a lengthy investigation, reprimanding him, and warning of possible future discipline; (2) plaintiff’s speech was protected because he “spoke in his own capacity as a professor, not on behalf of his employer” and he “unquestionably spoke on a matter of public concern”; and (3) the university failed to meet its burden under the Pickering test of demonstrating that its legitimate interests in mitigating the disruption outweighed plaintiff’s interest in speaking on a matter of public concern. Finally, on plaintiff’s facial challenge to the nondiscrimination policy, the court held that because the district court’s “limiting construction” of the policy conflicted with the policy’s plain text, the district court erred in dismissing the claim and remanded for further consideration.