Opinion ID: 384563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disciplinary Meeting on Communication

Text: 25 At a faculty meeting on May 2, 1978, plaintiff Virginia Gunn criticized her department chairman, Joseph Rodgers, of the Languages and Linguistics Department. Later that same day Rodgers wrote a memo to the administration evaluating Gunn and criticizing her teaching abilities. Among the items mentioned by Rodgers was a reference to the inordinate amount of time (Gunn spent) writing memos and seeking bones of contention. Eight of the plaintiffs wrote to Rodgers on May 16, 1978 accusing him of making an unwarranted and personal attack upon Gunn, whom they termed an excellent teacher. That letter was distributed to the faculty together with a copy of the Rodgers' evaluation of Gunn, which had been attached with Gunn's approval. Subsequently, Branson sent a letter to seven of the signers objecting, in strong terms, to their letter and distribution and requesting their attendance at a meeting with him and University counsel. The faculty members had not been advised in the letter that the University contemplated that this was a hearing from which discipline might result. When they learned that at the hearing, they refused to participate further. No disciplinary action was ever taken as a result of the meeting. 26 Plaintiffs claim that defendants' conduct in this connection had a chilling effect on them and caused some of them emotional stress. The district court found that (i)t is traditional that communications regarding evaluations of teachers be kept confidential. Plaintiffs contend this finding is clearly erroneous, relying on unrebutted testimony that each faculty member may decide whether a confidential memo placed in his/her file ought to be released. 27