Louis Wozniak v. Ilesanmi Adesida
932 F.3d 1008 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public university's termination of a tenured professor does not violate the First Amendment when the professor's speech is made pursuant to official duties or concerns a personal, job-related grievance rather than a matter of public concern. Furthermore, the Due Process Clause is satisfied if the professor receives notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before termination.
Facts:
- In 2009, after two student honor societies at the University of Illinois gave a teaching award to another professor, Professor Louis Wozniak believed he should have received it.
- Wozniak called a student leader of one of the societies to his office and aggressively interrogated her, causing her to cry.
- He then posted information on his website criticizing the student leaders of the honor societies, revealing information that could identify them.
- Wozniak filed a civil lawsuit in state court against the students for the admitted purpose of forcing them to submit to depositions, an action the court characterizes as the tort of abuse of process.
- After a University committee investigated and recommended against his dismissal, Wozniak published the committee's entire confidential report and all evidence on his website, again revealing the students' identities.
- Wozniak added a link to this material in the signature block of every email he sent from his official University account.
- The College's Dean instructed Wozniak to remove the material from his website, but Wozniak refused.
- Following a hearing, the University's Board of Trustees voted to fire Wozniak.
Procedural Posture:
- Wozniak filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging the University of Illinois violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing Wozniak's case.
- Wozniak, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 violate a tenured professor's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by terminating him for speech and conduct arising from a personal grievance, which involved harassing students and defying superiors, where the professor was provided with notice and multiple hearings before his dismissal?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge.
No. A public university does not violate a professor's constitutional rights by terminating him for such conduct. The professor's First Amendment claim fails because his speech was not protected. First, under Garcetti v. Ceballos, speech made by a public employee as part of their official duties is not protected, and the court found that how a faculty member relates to students is part of their job. Second, under Connick v. Myers, speech concerning personal job-related matters, such as a dispute over a teaching award, is not a matter of public concern and thus falls outside the scope of First Amendment protection. The professor's Due Process claim also fails because he received all the process that was constitutionally due: he was given formal notice and had two separate hearings, one before a university committee and another before the ultimate decisionmaker, the Board of Trustees, where he was represented by counsel. The failure to follow every internal university rule does not constitute a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the framework established in Garcetti and Connick, clarifying its application within the academic context. It establishes that a professor's interactions with students, even concerning non-curricular matters like awards, are considered part of their official duties, thus limiting First Amendment protection for their speech. The ruling grants public universities significant authority to discipline faculty for conduct deemed harassing or insubordinate, as long as it pertains to personal grievances rather than matters of public concern. By separating internal university regulations from constitutional due process requirements, the case also limits the ability of plaintiffs to use federal courts to enforce an employer's internal policies.
