Nathaniel Hiers Gets Green Light For Lawsuit

[mahagonny]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/professor-fired-for-calling-microaggressions-garbage-can-sue-judge-rules/

"The university officials allegedly flouted that core principle of the First Amendment when they discontinued Hiers' employment because of his speech," the federal judge wrote. "Accepting the allegations as true, the Court concludes that Hiers plausibly alleged that the university officials violated his right to freedom of speech."

[Parasaurolophus]

This is the correct decision.

Hier is wrong about microaggressions, and if he was an adjunct then he'll probably lose the legal case. But it's plausible that his 1A rights were violated, and he should be able to seek remedy for that.

[mahagonny]

Trigger warning: I agree with Hiers. If you can't stand to read, i recommend you skip this post.

It's quite possible that Hiers was planning to comply with whatever the new rules are regarding what's called 'micro aggressions.'  What if he had posted his sight gag on FB? Can he be fired then? And lose his lawsuit too? DEI will totally kill off free speech & our sense of humor if they are not stopped.
ETA - What the DEI crowd hates: you can change what people are allowed to say, but you can't control what people think.
The funny thing here, to me is, you don't have to give a reason to not renew an adjunct. You can have no reason or any reason. You can discontinue him because he drives an ugly car or because the students like him too much. The administrator who explained his reason was so sure that everyone would agree with him. Or maybe he thought it was his solemn duty to preach the gospel some more. He never dreamed there could be a lawsuit.
The lawsuit does good, even if it loses. By getting publicity. Also another chance to see the vast inequality in academic employment and the hypocrisy of their endless yammering about inequality.

[OneMoreYear]

<snip.
The funny thing here, to me is, you don't have to give a reason to not renew an adjunct. You can have no reason or any reason.
<snip>

Yes, this is the strangest part to me, that they gave him a reason at all. All they had to say (and what our admins probably would have told them to say) would have been something along the lines of "We are unable to offer you any courses for next semester. We thank you for your service to the department."
They opened themselves up to a lawsuit by providing this reason, so it is a reasonable course of action on his part to sue.

[marshwiggle]

<snip.
The funny thing here, to me is, you don't have to give a reason to not renew an adjunct. You can have no reason or any reason.
<snip>

Yes, this is the strangest part to me, that they gave him a reason at all. All they had to say (and what our admins probably would have told them to say) would have been something along the lines of "We are unable to offer you any courses for next semester. We thank you for your service to the department."
They opened themselves up to a lawsuit by providing this reason, so it is a reasonable course of action on his part to sue.

Maybe virtue signalling, where they wanted to get recognition for wokeness?

[mahagonny]

One explanation, the woke community, including its stronghold among the academic world, has yet to realize how much their thinking is rejected in broader society.
ETA: Although if they calculate that people have been afraid to push back, ridicule or even question their agenda for fear of being called bigoted or fired, they are absolutely correct.
The tide may be turning, especially where satire and ridicule are concerned. Greg Gutfeld and his right-of-center comedy-laced talk show (I bet not 1/5 of the academics reading this have seen it) is beating the liberals, Jimmy Kimmel and Steven Colbert, in the ratings. Babylon Bee is getting banned on Twitter, which will probably help their business.
It's actually an opportunity for the wokeists to show they have a sense of humor about their positions, which they will decline, because they don't.

[Parasaurolophus]

<snip.
The funny thing here, to me is, you don't have to give a reason to not renew an adjunct. You can have no reason or any reason.
<snip>

Yes, this is the strangest part to me, that they gave him a reason at all. All they had to say (and what our admins probably would have told them to say) would have been something along the lines of "We are unable to offer you any courses for next semester. We thank you for your service to the department."
They opened themselves up to a lawsuit by providing this reason, so it is a reasonable course of action on his part to sue.

That said, the reason they gave is not his speech, but his behaviour. In particular, they say it's not just his tasteless initial action, which is plausibly construed as protected speech, but also his subsequent responses to the chair, which are deemed inappropriate/insubordinate/whatever. If he's in a position requiring cause for dismissal, that may well satisfy the requirements (and explain why he was given a reason).

Although he seems within his rights to sue, I doubt a lawsuit would prevail. Probably they'll settle, and for not all that much.

[mahagonny]

<snip.
The funny thing here, to me is, you don't have to give a reason to not renew an adjunct. You can have no reason or any reason.
<snip>

Yes, this is the strangest part to me, that they gave him a reason at all. All they had to say (and what our admins probably would have told them to say) would have been something along the lines of "We are unable to offer you any courses for next semester. We thank you for your service to the department."
They opened themselves up to a lawsuit by providing this reason, so it is a reasonable course of action on his part to sue.

That said, the reason they gave is not his speech, but his behaviour. In particular, they say it's not just his tasteless initial action, which is plausibly construed as protected speech, but also his subsequent responses to the chair, which are deemed inappropriate/insubordinate/whatever. If he's in a position requiring cause for dismissal, that may well satisfy the requirements (and explain why he was given a reason).

Although he seems within his rights to sue, I doubt a lawsuit would prevail. Probably they'll settle, and for not all that much.

+1      the defense should be able to argue that he was not going to get tenure anyway since he apparently cannot listen to and also abide by higher education's social justice agenda without having an opinion.

'"The court is also allowing Dr. Hiers to seek damages for the retaliation against him," Ross said. "ince his firing, Dr. Hiers has had trouble finding work at other universities and the actions of the university are significantly impeding his ability to become a tenured professor."'