|
|
|
Limited First Amendment Rights for College Professors
(May 2011) By Lydia S. Hu, Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
McReady v. O’Malley,
No. RWT 08cv2347 (D. Md. March 31, 2011) | View pdf
A professor began employment with the University of
Maryland University College (“UMUC”) as a Collegiate Associate Professor and
Assistant Academic Director of Accounting. He later vacated the Assistant
Academic Director of Accounting position and began the twelve month Collegiate
Associate Professor position within the Accounting Department. Soon after, UMUC
undertook a search to fill the vacant Assistant Academic Director of Accounting
position. The professor was approached about being considered for the position,
but he declined. He later communicated that he would be interested in returning
to the position if he received either a higher salary or a three-year contract.
The UMUC administration denied both requests.
Several months later, the professor was removed from his
face-to-face classroom course work and re-assigned to the online course
selection. His position in the face-to-face class was filled by another
professor. Starting in the Spring 2007, the professor wrote several hostile
emails challenging the administration’s decision to replace him in the
face-to-face classroom. Soon, the professor was informed that his contract,
which was up for renewal in June 2008, would not be renewed. The professor
continued in his complaints about the administration’s decision of replacing him
with another professor.
In August 2007, the professor was terminated for cause
because of his willful neglect of duties and insubordination.
The professor sued UMUC and various university
officials asserting that his First Amendment right to speech was violated.
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland explained that
public employees surrender some of their First Amendment rights by reason of
their employment. The First Amendment protects speech only if the employee
spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Here, an employee’s speech
contesting managerial decisions does not touch on matters of public concern.
The professor complained about the duties that he was asked to perform and
the administration’s decisions to reassign him to online courses rather than
face-to-face classroom courses.
The record demonstrated that the professor made
increasingly hostile statements directed towards the managerial decisions
and the administration. Such speech is not entitled to First Amendment
protection. Furthermore, if an employee’s speech hinders the working
relationships of other personnel, the employee’s speech interests are
outweighed by the employer’s interest in maintaining order and efficiency.
The professor’s constant challenge of the administration’s decisions that
were increasingly hostile undermined UMUC’s ability to maintain discipline
in the school. As an example, the professor made it a habit of copying
multiple members of the Accounting Department on his lengthy and
insubordinate and hostile emails to the administration. The receipt of the
emails undoubtedly interfered with the other professors’ ability to do their
jobs and to teach in their classrooms.
The United States District Court for the District of
Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of UMUC.
|
|
|
Top
