Litigious Law Professors Face Tough Odds in Court
Law professors sue for a variety of reasons, often pertaining to hiring, firing and tenure denial. Unfortunately for them, they rarely prevail in court.
March 06, 2018 at 01:17 PM
4 minute read
Law professors teach students how to bring a case to court, but it turns out they aren't particularly successful as plaintiffs filing suit on their own behalf.
Far more often than not, law professors lose when they sue over matters such as not getting hired, tenure denials, or pay disputes, according to an article in the latest edition of the Albany Law Review.
Author Robert Jarvis, a professor at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center, wrote that his article, “Law Professors as Plaintiffs,” appears to be the first systemic study of lawsuits brought by law professors. He scoured court records to identify cases involving law professors, and excluded those in which they served as expert witnesses, pro bono counsel, or merely had their scholarship cited. The remaining cases skewed heavily toward employment matters centered on a few general issues, Jarvis found.
“What is particularly striking is how often the same three issues are at the root of these lawsuits: dissatisfaction with, and professional jealousy of, faculty colleagues; disagreements with, and distrust of, administrators; and feeling that others are receiving better, and undeserved, treatment,” Jarvis wrote.
He also determined that law professor suits are far more common in recent years—a change attributable to the fact that there are many more law schools and law professors today than in the past, and that the professoriate has become far more diverse by race and gender over the past several decades, which has opened the door to more discrimination suits.
Finally, Jarvis concluded that law professors are a sensitive bunch. “Many law professors are guilty of a shocking level of thin-skinnedness,” he wrote.
Jarvis identified suits brought by would-be professors who failed to get hired, many of which alleged age discrimination; untenured and tenured faculty who were fired; faculty whose contracts were not renewed for poor performance or lack of scholarship; and professors who were denied tenure, some of whom alleged a lack of proper procedure in their tenure reviews.
He found suits in which law deans sued their universities, among them former University of California, Berkeley School of Law Dean Sujit Choudhry's unsuccessful 2016 lawsuit seeking to prevent the university opening a second investigation into claims of sexual harassment made by his executive assistant.
Law professors have also sued over their working conditions, including disputes over pay, health insurance and retirement benefits. Some have gone to court in connection with their scholarship, usually in an attempt to gain access to government documents. A few law professors have sued over reputational harm, often as defamation claims, while others have sued over their tax bills.
Among the cases Jarvis cataloged:
- Former Duquesne University School of Law professor Cornelius Murphy Jr., sued after he was fired for propositioning first-year female law students. A Pennsylvania trial court upheld the firing in 1999.
- A law professor at Indiana University sued a student of his in 1845 for failing to pay his tuition for two years. The university at the time had a rule that professors were personally liable for unpaid tuition. The professor lost.
- Alfred Avins, a law professor at Memphis State University, sued the Rutgers Law Review for rejecting his article on the basis that it was too conservative. A court sided with the law review in 1967.
“Law professors regularly step out of the classroom and into the courtroom to vindicate the rights of others,” Jarvis wrote. “Every so often, however, as this article has shown, they are seeking—and sometimes finding—justice for themselves.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250