Adams v. Trustees of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington
640 F.3d 550, 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7036 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Speech by a public university professor on matters of public concern, which is not made pursuant to specific, assigned employment duties, is protected by the First Amendment. This protection is not lost when the professor includes that speech in an application for promotion, as the 'official duties' test from Garcetti v. Ceballos does not necessarily apply to speech related to academic scholarship or teaching.
Facts:
- In 1993, the University of North Carolina-Wilmington (UNCW) hired Michael S. Adams as an assistant professor, and he was promoted to tenured associate professor in 1998.
- In 2000, Adams became a Christian, which led him to adopt more conservative ideological views.
- Following his conversion, Adams became a prominent public commentator, writing regular columns for Townhall.com, publishing a book, and appearing on radio and television to discuss political and social issues.
- Some UNCW employees and officials expressed discomfort with Adams' views, and a department chair suggested he adopt a less 'caustic' tone.
- In 2004, Adams applied for a promotion to the position of full professor.
- In his application, under the 'Service' section, Adams listed his national columns, his book titled 'Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel', and his public appearances as part of his professional activities.
- The senior faculty in Adams' department voted 7-2 to oppose his promotion.
- Dr. Kimberly Cook, the Department Chair, ultimately denied the promotion, citing concerns with Adams' record in scholarly research, teaching, and service, with the primary issue being his 'thin' record of peer-reviewed publications since his last promotion.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael S. Adams filed a complaint against UNCW officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
- Adams alleged claims for First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, religious discrimination under Title VII, and violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- The district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss monetary claims against them in their official capacities and Title VII claims against them in their individual capacities.
- Following discovery, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims.
- The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
- Adams, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the UNCW officials as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public university professor’s extramural speech on matters of public concern, which is not part of his assigned duties, lose its First Amendment protection when he includes it in his application for promotion, thereby making it speech pursuant to his official duties under Garcetti v. Ceballos?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Agee
No. A public university professor's speech on matters of public concern does not lose its First Amendment protection simply because it is included in a promotion application. The district court erred in holding that Adams' previously protected speech was converted into unprotected speech made pursuant to his 'official duties' when he listed it on his application. The correct inquiry focuses on the role the speaker occupied when the speech was made, not on how the speech was later used. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos explicitly reserved the question of whether its 'official duties' analysis applies to speech related to academic scholarship or teaching. Given this carve-out and Fourth Circuit precedent, the Garcetti test is inapplicable here. Instead, the Pickering-Connick analysis applies, under which Adams' speech on topics like academic freedom, civil rights, religion, and morality was clearly that of a citizen speaking on a matter of public concern.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the reach of Garcetti v. Ceballos in the Fourth Circuit's public university context, reinforcing the principles of academic freedom. By declining to apply Garcetti's 'official duties' test to a professor's extramural speech related to scholarship, the court creates a protective space for academics to engage in public discourse without fear of reprisal. This precedent solidifies that such speech will be analyzed under the more speech-protective Pickering-Connick balancing test, ensuring that a professor's public commentary isn't automatically stripped of First Amendment protection simply because it relates to their general expertise or is referenced in an employment evaluation.
