Bonnell v. Lorenzo
| Decision Date | 04 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-2047,99-2047 |
| Citation | 241 F.3d 800 |
| Parties | (6th Cir. 2001) John C. Bonnell and Nancy L. Bonnell, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Albert Lorenzo, William MacQueen, and Gus J. Demas, Defendants-Appellants, Mark Cousens, Defendant. Argued: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Page 800
v.
Albert Lorenzo, William MacQueen, and Gus J. Demas, Defendants-Appellants, Mark Cousens, Defendant.
Decided and Filed: March 1, 2001
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit: No. 99-71155, Paul D. Borman, District Judge.
Page 801
Page 802
Juan A. Mateo, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees.
Gerald K. Evelyn, Detroit, Michigan, for Amici Curiae.
Hunter L. Wendt, Mt. Clemens, Michigan, Thomas P. Brady, Jeffrey A. Steele, BRADY & HATHAWAY, Detroit, Michigan, Timothy S. Ferrand, CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, Roseville, Michigan, for Appellants. James C. Howarth,
Mark H. Cousens, Souhtfield, MI
Donald J. Mooney, Jr., BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, Cincinnati, Ohio,
Before: NELSON, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COLE, J., joined. NELSON, J. (pp. 49-51), delivered a separate concurring opinion.
CLAY, Circuit Judge.
OPINION
Defendants, Albert Lorenzo, William MacQueen, and Gus J. Demas, appeal from the order granting Plaintiffs, John C. Bonnell and his wife Nancy L. Bonnell, injunctive relief as to Defendants' disciplinary suspension of John Bonnell from his teaching position at Macomb Community College ("the College"), in this case brought by Plaintiffs for, among other things, violation of John Bonnell's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and §1985. This case presents us with the difficult task of balancing the precious First Amendment rights of a professor in the academic setting, against the legal obligation of a college to guarantee the rights of students to learn in an environment free of sexual harassment and hostility. Mindful of the significant import of the respective interests involved, we conclude that the balance tips in favor of the College such that the district court erred in granting the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction under the specific facts of this case. We therefore REVERSE the district court's order.
Plaintiff has taught English Language and Literature at the College since the Fall of 1967. Plaintiff is a member of the Macomb Community College Faculty Organization
Page 803
("MCCFO") and is employed pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). 1
In a memorandum dated February 19, 1998, entitled "Obscene and vulgar language in classroom," MacQueen informed Plaintiff that the parent of one of Plaintiff's students (not the complainant in the instant case) had filed a letter of complaint against him based upon a handout that Plaintiff had circulated to the members of his class. The handout, entitled "My Semester Overview," is actually a review of Plaintiff's class prepared by one of Plaintiff's former students in 1991. The handout, as quoted in the memorandum, states as follows: "Next, the language that was used during the first four weeks or so of class, in my opinion, was very inappropriate and distasteful. Never before have I encountered an English teacher who used the word "fuck" so openly and so frequently in a classroom discussion. In addition, the use of words such as "pussy" and "cunt" are simply uncalled for and very offensive to many, including me. I really feel that language such as this is very degrading to women."
(J.A. at 101.) MacQueen went on to inform Plaintiff that "[a]lthough I do not know the context in which these words are used, I am concerned that your use of such language in the classroom will give rise to a claim of sexual harassment on the theory that this language creates a hostile learning environment for women. Simple knowledge of your past use of this language places the College under a legal duty to investigate whether you are creating a hostile learning environment." (J.A. at 101.) Accordingly, a meeting was scheduled with Plaintiff, his MCCFO representative, and MacQueen, Dr. Ruth Reed, James Van Eman (the College's General Counsel), and Margaret MacTavish (the College's Affirmative Action Officer), for February 26, 1998 to investigate the matter.
Plaintiff agreed to the meeting and defended his use of such language. Plaintiff maintained that none of the terms at issue were directed to a particular student and were only used for demonstrating an academic point. Plaintiff claimed that he used the terms to "point out the chauvinistic degrading attitudes in society that depict women as sexual objects, as compared to certain words to describe male genitalia, which are not taboo or considered to be deliberately intended to degrade." (J.A. at 30.)
The February 26, 1998, investigation concluded with MacQueen issuing a warning to Plaintiff via a memorandum dated March 4, 1998, entitled "Obscene and vulgar speech," which states in relevant part: This memorandum will confirm my verbal warning to you concerning your use of obscene and vulgar language in the classroom. . . . Unless germane to discussion of appropriate course materials and thus a constitutionally protected act of academic freedom, your utterance in the classroom of such words as 'fuck,' 'cunt,' and 'pussy' may serve as a reasonable basis for concluding as a matter of law that you are fostering a learning environment hostile to women, a form of sexual harassment. Federal and state law imposes a duty on the College to prevent the sexual harassment of its students and therefore requires that the College
Page 804
discipline you if it finds that you have created a hostile environment. The principle of academic freedom under the 1st Amendment serves to protect the utterances in question only if they are germane to course content as measured by professional teaching standards. Since the precise frontier between academic freedom and sexual harassment remains to be defined by the courts case by case, a teacher of English literature or composition courses may be able to find safety and comfort under the 1st Amendment only if the words uttered are found in appropriate textual materials and the utterances are pertinent to discussion of those materials. Beyond this point, the teacher enters uncharted territory and proceeds at his or her own risk of being found guilty of sexual harassment. Consequently, you are warned that a general use in the classroom of words like 'fuck,' 'cunt,' and 'pussy' outside a professional exegesis may compel the conclusion that you are creating a hostile learning environment requiring disciplinary action.
(J.A. at 102.)
About eight months later, in November of 1998, a female student enrolled in Plaintiff's English 122 class, and filed a written "sexual harassment" complaint with the College ("the Complaint"), claiming that Plaintiff's classroom language constituted sexual harassment. (J.A. at 230.) The Complaint states in relevant part: This is a letter of formal complaint against Professor John Bonnell. I am currently a student in Mr. Bonnell's class, English 122 from 8-9:30 PM on Mondays and Wednesdays. My complaint against Mr. Bonnell is sexual harassment. . . . Beginning in middle to late September the atmosphere of the class started to change from comfortable to extremely offensive. Mr. Bonnell began using lude [sic] and obscene comments. These comments stemmed from English stories that we were reading in class, and he decided to add his own personal comments. These comments were dehumanizing, degrading, and sexually explicit. Some of the stories that were required reading revealed sexual innuendoes and implications. This should have been dealt with in a professional and appropriate manner, yet Mr. Bonnell displayed a lack of maturity, sensitivity, and responsibility, by taking advantage of the conversations to express his own previous sexual experiences. If this class had been a psychology or human sexuality class, I might have understood more of why sex was the major content of our class. This was supposed to be an English class and I feel cheated out of my money because I paid tuition to learn English. I did not pay to hear about Mr. Bonnell's sexual escapades. I feel that he also used his teacher position as a platform for authority to intimidate his students not to complain about him. Mr. Bonnell repeatedly made fun of students who had expressed offense or disgust and he also laughed at them. This is one of the reasons why I did not come forward sooner. I feel compelled to speak up now so as to save further embarrassment to Macomb Community College. I, as a student, and as a wife have been strongly affected mentally and emotionally due to the sexual harassment from Mr. Bonnell. My husband and I are fully prepared to take this sexual harassment complaint to the highest level of authority it can go.
My goals of filing this complaint is [sic] to, at the very least, receive credit for English 122, and a written apology from Mr. Bonnell. I also would like Mr. Bonnell to be dismissed from the college immediately. Mr. Bonnell also needs to go to a counselor to discuss his sexual problems. I would also like Mr. Bonnell to be denied all access to my and my husbands [sic] social security numbers, student accounts, address, and telephone numbers. I expect and demand that this sexual harassment be taken seriously
Page 805
and given top priority. Thank you for acting immediately and swiftly in this matter.
(J.A. at 230.)
As a result, Gus J. Demas, Dean of Arts and Science at the College, scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff to further investigate the matter, and also provided Plaintiff with a copy of the Complaint. Plaintiff made copies of the Complaint and passed them out to the students in all six of his classes after redacting the complaining student's name, and also posted a copy of the Complaint on the bulletin board outside of his classroom. At a December 3, 1998, investigatory meeting, MacQueen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vitolo v. Guzman
-
Burns v. City of Detroit
... ... In Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 820-821 (C.A.6, 2001), the court further explained this concept: ... Plaintiff may have a constitutional ... ...
- Bongo Prods., LLC v. Lawrence
- Alsaada v. City of Columbus
-
Free Speech and the Right to Offend: Old Wars, New Battles, Different Media
...Suck!" did not violate the student's constitutional rights). [234]. 478 U.S. 675 (1986). [235]. Id. at 685. [236]. Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 2001). [237]. Id. [238]. Gresham v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir. 2000). [239]. Id. at 904. [240]. Id. at 906. [241]. Id......
-
Academic Freedom and Professorial Speech in the Post-garcetti World
...216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000) (arguing that academic freedom rests with the university, not the faculty). 65. See Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (dealing with professor disciplined for vulgar and profane classroom speech that was not germane to the course subject matter). 6......
-
A dangerous mix: mandatory sentence enhancements and the use of motive.
...e.g., Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). (124.) See generally Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (balancing a professor's right to free speech against a university's interest in protecting its students from (125.) See City......
-
Academic Freedom and Discharge from Public Employment: the Unsettled Debate
...receiving federal research funding to investigate and respond to allegations of research misconduct). [28] See, e.g., Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 824 (6th Cir. 2001) ("we believe that the College's interest in preserving a learning environment free of sexual harassment, among others, ......