Kilborn v. Amiridis
| Docket Number | 22 C 475 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Parties | JASON J. KILBORN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL AMIRIDIS, CARYN A. BILLS, JULIE M. SPANBAUER, DONALD KAMM, AND ASHLEY DAVIDSON Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
University of Illinois Chicago (“UIC”) School of Law professor Jason Kilborn, formerly the subject of an investigation by UIC's Office of Access and Equity (“OAE”), brings this suit against Defendants Michael Amiridis, Caryn Bills, Julie Spanbauer, Donald Kamm and Ashley Davidson, all UIC employees, in their official and individual capacities. Based on OAE's investigation and recommended sanctions, Kilborn alleges violations of the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and state law specifically defamation and false light.
After Defendants moved to dismiss Kilborn's First Amended Complaint, Doc. 20, the Court dismissed Kilborn's First Amendment retaliation claim, First Amendment compelled speech claim against Defendants in their official capacities, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Doc. 43. The Court also limited Kilborn's defamation and false light claims to certain allegedly false statements, not including the “cockroaches” reference. Id. Kilborn timely filed his Second Amended Complaint on March 1, 2023, alleging all the same claims except “the dismissed claims for (1) a property interest in the 2% across-the-board merit raise, and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Doc. 47 at 1 n.1.[1]
Because Kilborn has again failed to sufficiently plead that his speech involved matters of public concern, the Court dismisses his First Amendment retaliation claim. The Court finds that sovereign and qualified immunity shield Defendants from Kilborn's First Amendment compelled speech claim and dismisses that claim against Defendants in their official and personal capacities. Additionally, the Court dismisses Kilborn's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims because they fail to state a cognizable claim. Without any viable federal claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.
BACKGROUND[2]
Kilborn is a tenured professor at UIC School of Law. In December of 2020, Kilborn gave his Civil Procedure II class a final exam which included a hypothetical employment discrimination scenario that Kilborn had used on his exam for ten years. The scenario focused on an employee who “quit her job at Employer after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n' and ‘b' (profane expressions for African Americans and women) and vowed to get rid of her.” Doc. 47 ¶ 15.
Kilborn chose the “precise setting and language” of this question to further the themes discussed throughout the semester, namely “civil rights and race discrimination.” Id. ¶¶ 62, 64. The exam question generated student criticism, including a petition circulated by the Black Law Students Association (“BLSA”) (the “BLSA Petition”).
On January 4, 2021, Kilborn emailed a former student expressing his sadness and pain from the BLSA Petition. Kilborn saw the student's name on the BLSA “attack letter” against him and conveyed that it was “[s]uch a shame to see all of [his] efforts to offer comfort and encouragement . . . only to be now vilified in the most vicious, cruel, and uncompassionate way.” Doc. 47-1 at 10. Kilborn said that he felt “heart . . . broken.” Id. A few days after sending the email, Kilborn discussed the controversy over Zoom with a member of BLSA, who had not been a student in Kilborn's class. The call occurred after class hours. About an hour into the over four-hour conversation with the student, the student asked Kilborn why the law school dean did not show him the BLSA Petition. Kilborn responded, in jest, that the law school dean might not have shared the petition because she feared that if Kilborn saw what students said about him, he might “become homicidal.” Doc. 47 ¶ 20. The conversation continued with no indication that the student felt distressed or threatened.
As a result of his conversation with the BLSA member, Kilborn alleges that “the law school dean, along with other Defendants” invoked UIC's Violence Prevention Plan and convened a Behavioral Threat Assessment Team to assess the purported threat of physical violence. Id. ¶ 22. On January 12, 2021, the first day of Kilborn's classes for the spring semester, the law school dean told Kilborn that he must take an “indefinite administrative leave”; cancelled his classes for the semester; forbade him from coming onto campus or engaging in UIC activities; prohibited him from meeting with colleagues, students, or alumni; and required Kilborn to seek prior approval before speaking at external conferences. Id. ¶ 24. Additionally, the dean told Kilborn “not [to] discuss” the events with anyone associated with UIC. Id. When Kilborn asked for the reason behind these actions, the dean conveyed that students raised additional concerns regarding possible violations of UIC policies, including UIC's Nondiscrimination Policy. The dean informed Kilborn that OAE would explain more in the coming days.
On January 15, 2021, Kilborn met with OAE. Caryn Bills, OAE's Associate Chancellor, told him that his comment about becoming homicidal predicated his administrative leave. Kilborn admitted that he made the comment but emphasized that he said it in jest. To clear the administrative leave, Kilborn had to meet with UIC health officials and undergo drug testing and examination by a nurse, social worker, and doctor. A few days later, Kilborn cleared administrative leave and began unrestricted duty. His classes remained cancelled.
A month later, on February 17, 2021, OAE provided Kilborn with a notice of investigation related to allegations of race-based discrimination and harassment. The notice included a list of allegations from unidentified sources to which Kilborn attempted to respond in writing and at an interview, although he objected that he could not respond to the vague allegations.
Three months later, on May 28, 2021, OAE provided a findings letter (the “Findings Letter”) to Kilborn. The Findings Letter reflected that OAE did not substantiate the allegations of race-based discrimination against Kilborn. It did, however, conclude that Kilborn's actions amounted to harassment in violation of the Nondiscrimination Policy. OAE based its determination on a variety of purported statements and actions taken by Kilborn, including that he interfered with Black students' participation in UIC's programs; made references to “cockroaches” and “lynching”; used an “African American Vernacular English” (“AAVE”) accent when referencing a Black artist's lyrics over the course of one class; used an exam question that included an explicit (abbreviated) reference to a racial epithet; expressed anger and displeasure when he learned students had objected to the exam question; and discussed the possibility that he might become “homicidal” as a result of BLSA's Petition, among other findings. Doc. 47-1 at 3-5. All Defendants participated in creating the Findings Letter, which Kilborn alleges they published by sending to BLSA members and others. The entire Findings Letter eventually made its way into an ABA Journal article. Other news sources picked up the story and reported that Kilborn referred to minorities as “cockroaches” and used racial slurs. Protests and a press conference were held to “denounce” Kilborn. Doc. 47 ¶ 40.
A few weeks later, on June 18, Kilborn met with Julie Spanbauer, Interim Dean of UIC's law school, to discuss next steps for Kilborn resulting from the Findings Letter. Kilborn agreed to allow someone from UIC to review his class recordings for instances of potential racial harassment and report if any instance of potential racial harassment arose. Kilborn also agreed to speak with Spanbauer before responding to any arising race-based student complaint. Based on this conversation, Spanbauer provided Kilborn with a “final resolution.” Id. ¶ 45. The resolution consisted of requirements and recommendations for Kilborn. One requirement mandated that, if a review of his class recordings over four semesters revealed that Kilborn maintained a harassing classroom environment, Kilborn would have to undergo sensitivity training.
Spanbauer later “reneg[ed]” on their “agreed settlement arrangement,” which Kilborn accepted “to avoid a lawsuit,” because Kilborn did not receive a 2% merit raise and Defendants required him to complete sensitivity training, comprised of an eight-week diversity course. Id. ¶¶ 45-47, 50. As part of the course, Kilborn had to meet with a trainer who would provide feedback regarding Kilborn's engagement with and commitment to the program. Kilborn could not teach his courses until he satisfactorily completed the program. Kilborn “complied with” the training program. Id. ¶ 51. Kilborn has since changed his curriculum to avoid cases that discuss issues of racial discrimination for fear of violating UIC's policy.
In November 2021, in response to a Freedom of Information Request, UIC released the investigation report upon which OAE based its Findings Letter. Kilborn received the report drafted by Ashley Davidson, a Title IX and Equity Compliance Specialist in OAE during the relevant time period, for the first time on November 11, 2021. On November 30, Michael Amiridis, the Chancellor of UIC, released the report to the UIC community along with a cover letter (together, the “UIC Community Letter”). The report included many of the same statements as the Findings Letter but added statements including that “certain alleged statements ...
To continue reading
Request your trial