Opinion ID: 384563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaliatory Action

Text: 10 C. James Trotman was Chairman of the English Department in April 1977 when these events began. He began teaching at Lincoln in the 1967-68 academic year; his teaching contract was renewed the following year. In 1969 Trotman took an extended leave in order to take graduate courses at Columbia University Teachers College, obtaining a Doctor of Education Degree (Ed.D.) in English. He returned to Lincoln in 1973 and was named Chairman of the English Department in that year. If his contract had been renewed during the 1977-78 academic year, he would have been awarded tenure because of his length of service. He was, however, an outspoken critic of President Branson and the retrenchment program. He was removed as Chairman of the English Department on June 30, 1977, and by letter dated December 13, 1977 he was notified that he was terminated as of June 30, 1978. 11 Although the action was dismissed before defendants presented their case, their defense emerges through cross-examination and argument. Defendants claim, and the trial court found, that Trotman was fired because the University had no evidence that Trotman had acquired an earned doctorate in the field of English, and that any criticism of President Branson in which Trotman engaged was not a factor in Branson's decision to deny him tenure. Trotman claims he did not realize Branson thought the degree was in English as opposed to Education with a concentration in English, that the degrees are identical for teaching purposes, and that the degree question is a sham. Trotman filed a termination grievance for binding arbitration as required by the collective bargaining agreement between the faculty and the University, which ultimately concluded with an award in his favor requiring the University to treat the 1978-79 academic year as though Trotman had, in fact, taught full-time in the English Department for all purposes including the purpose of achieving de facto tenure. 3 This award is currently on appeal.
12 In November 1977, Edward Groff, a Professor of English, learned that he would have to undergo brain surgery. Groff was another active critic of the Branson administration. He sought to be placed on sick leave and was assured by University Vice President Wade that that presented no problem. Upon returning home on January 13, 1978, Groff found a letter from Branson, dated January 5, informing him that he was retired effective December 31, 1977. The difference between retirement and sick leave was significant, retirement resulting in lower income and loss of medical benefits and coverage. Although Wade told the Union contract administrator on January 12 and 13 that he understood that Groff did not want to retire and that a mistake had been made, Branson attempted to justify the administration's actions in a January 18, 1978 memorandum to faculty and trustees. It was only after protest by faculty members in the next several weeks over Groff's retirement that Branson denominated the University action a misunderstanding and reinstated Groff. 13 The district court found that the retirement was not in retaliation for Groff's outspoken criticism of the administration, as plaintiffs alleged.
14 Plaintiff Johnson, originally appointed by Branson as Chairman of the Chemistry Department, was removed from that position by Branson in 1978, at the end of a tumultuous year in which Johnson was in the forefront of the faculty dissidents and was quite outspoken in his criticism of President Branson. His removal prompted a petition signed by 25 faculty members who termed the action by Branson a retributive action. 15 In this instance, unlike in the other two, the district court did not find a lack of connection between Johnson's criticisms and his removal as Chairman. Rather, the court held that Johnson's conduct undermined the harmony and mutual respect which should exist between the head of the University and the Chairman of one of its academic departments, adding the grossly offensive comments of W. T. Johnson cannot march under the banner of the First Amendment or of academic freedom.
16 On September 1, 1977, Trotman and Alfred Farrell, another member of the English Department, were standing with other individuals in a classroom to protest the action of Gladys Willis, who had been appointed by Branson to chair the English Department, in assigning herself to teach a course formerly taught by Farrell. Thereafter both Trotman and Farrell were arrested by campus police, and Trotman was charged with disorderly conduct. Ultimately, the Board of Trustees decided not to press charges. 17 The district court found that Trotman and others demonstrated in Willis' classroom and created disruptions which prevented her from teaching class, and that Trotman's arrest did not violate his constitutional rights.