Lawton v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Neb.
| Docket Number | 4:21CV3162 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 2022 |
| Parties | COURTNEY LAWTON, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, HANK BOUNDS, Individually; and RONNIE GREEN, Individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
In this case, a graduate student and lecturer of English at a state university alleges that the university's response to her participation in an on-campus protest violated her rights under the state and federal constitutions. This case comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint seeking dismissal pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Filing 25.
The Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. First Plaintiff's claims alleging violations of unspecified portions of the Nebraska Constitution must be dismissed as to all Defendants for failure to state claims that are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nebraska law. Second, sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment bars all of Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims against the Defendant Board of Regents, and it also bars Plaintiff's prayers for declaratory relief against the individual Defendants. Third, Plaintiff has not pleaded the personal involvement of one of the individual Defendants in alleged federal constitutional violations so that her claims against him must all be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Fourth, notwithstanding Plaintiff's assertion that she has alleged in her Amended Complaint “copious and detailed facts” supporting her federal constitutional claims, the Court concludes that she has, at most, alleged facts consistent with the remaining individual Defendant's liability but well short of the line between possibility and plausibility.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff Courtney Lawton was a graduate student and a Lecturer of English at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). Filing 23 at 1-2. Defendant Board of Regents (the Board) is the governing body of the University of Nebraska system and a corporate body that operates “by virtue of the constitution and statutes of Nebraska.” Filing 23 at 2. At the relevant times, Defendant Hank Bounds was President of UNL, and Defendant Ronnie Green was (and still is) the Chancellor of UNL. Filing 23 at 1-2.
On August 4, 2017, the Board of Regents offered Lawton a “Special Appointment” as a Lecturer of English from August 14, 2017 to May 11, 2018. Filing 23 at 2. Lawton was to be paid a salary of $18, 240 for this half-time position, and she alleges that her duties were to be “100 percent teaching.” Filing 23 at 2. She accepted the Board's offer on August 10, 2017. Filing 23 at 2.
On August 25, 2017, eleven days after the start of her appointment as a Lecturer, Lawton “protested in the ‘free speech area' located on the [UNL] campus, ” that is, she “stood in with and spoke to protest of [sic] a national political group called ‘Turning Point USA.'” Filing 23 at 2. According to Lawton, Turning Point USA is “dedicated to documenting and exposing college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote Anti-American values and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” Filing 23 at 2-3. Turning Point USA seeks to accomplish its mission in part by maintaining a list of offending professors on a “watch list site.” Filing 23 at 3. According to Lawton, “many have criticized the site as ‘a threat to academic freedom.'” Filing 23 at 3. Lawton alleges that she protested Turning Point USA by “expressing concerns regarding the political groups' [sic] motives and movement, bringing attention to views opposing those of Turning Point USA.” Filing 23 at 3. A member of Turning Point USA recorded video of Lawton at the protest. Filing 23 at 3. Turning Point USA then published the video. Filing 23 at 3. The video is not part of the record, however.
Lawton alleges that publication of the video “resulted in significant publicity and [she] began receiving harassment from others as well as persons, including a state senator, demanding that she be expelled from [UNL].” Filing 23 at 3-4. She also alleges that on August 28, 2017, then-President Hank Bounds posted a public message on Twitter criticizing her behavior as “unprofessional” and “not in keeping with the standards of conduct” of UNL. Filing 23 at 4.
On August 27, 2017, Lawton met with faculty members from the UNL College of Arts and Sciences, “pursuant to their request to gather information regarding the exercise of [her] First Amendment rights.” Filing 23 at 4. Similarly, on or about August 28, 2017, Lawton met with Chancellor Green and other employees of UNL “to discuss [her] exercise of her First Amendment rights.” Filing 23 at 4. During that meeting Lawton was informed that UNL “had received many angry letters and emails, all of which were critical of [her].” Filing 23 at 4. Lawton alleges that, “[a]t the request of employees of [UNL], ” she did not make any comments to the media, because she believed the request was for her safety. Filing 23 at 4.
Lawton alleges “she had been promised that she would retain her position as a lecturer and [would] be able to be involved in teaching duties in the second semester, beginning January 2018.” Filing 23 at 4. This allegation at least implies that Lawton understood that she would not be teaching the remainder of the Fall 2017 semester. Lawton does not allege when a promise was made that she would be teaching again in January 2018, who made it, or who, if anyone, told her she would not be teaching the remainder of the Fall 2017 semester.
Lawton does allege, however, that on September 6, 2017, a spokesperson for the Board released a statement that “contradicted the agreement and understanding of the meeting on September 5, 2017.” Filing 23 at 5. There are no other allegations in the Amended Complaint about a “meeting on September 5, 2017, ” who attended such a meeting, or what was agreed during that meeting. Lawton quotes the public statement made on September 6, 2017, as stating, “[O]ur expectations for civility were not met by the lecturer in her behavior . . . and not representative of [UNL] where the robust free exchange of ideas takes place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” Filing 23 at 5 (ellipses in original). Lawton alleges this statement demonstrates that her removal from teaching for the fall semester was not owing to security concerns, but instead “referred to [her] exercise of her free speech rights.” Filing 23 at 5. Lawton alleges that on or about September 6, 2017, she also “received a letter from an employee of the [Board] placing her on probation, ” which she alleges was “an adverse employment action and/or an action adversely affecting [her] educational opportunities.” Filing 23 at 5. Lawton does not allege who the employee of the Board was who placed her on “probation, ” what was the nature of that “probation, ” or how long that “probation” was to last.
On September 13, 2017, Lawton “sought guidance” from the chair of her department at UNL during which she asked the chair “what steps she could take to defend herself and to have the [adverse] action decision undone.” Filing 23 at 5. Lawton does not allege what she was told by her department chair. She alleges that she “was given the impression there were procedures and policies in place that prevented her from taking any further grievance action at this point with respect to the September 6, 2017, adverse employment action and/or an action adversely affecting [her] educational opportunities.” Filing 23 at 6.
As of October 24, 2017, Lawton understood that she was to return to teaching in the Spring 2018 semester. Filing 23 at 6. On or about October 24, 2017, Lawton had a meeting with Chancellor Green “and others, ” which Lawton alleges was “to discuss the exercise of her First Amendment rights.” Filing 23 at 6. At that meeting, those present viewed the video of the August 25, 2017, incident. Filing 23 at 6. Lawton alleges the video “revealed that [she] did not invade the space of any other student but was involved in the ‘robust free exchange of ideas' in the free speech zone which was created by the defendants for the purpose of expressing speech.” Filing 23 at 6. Lawton does not allege any outcome of that meeting.
On October 30, 2017, three members of the Nebraska Unicameral published an editorial in a Hastings, Nebraska, newspaper. Lawton alleges that editorial “pos[ed] five questions, all of which inferred [sic] that [UNL] was hostile to conservative students.” Filing 23 at 6. The questions were the following:
Filing 23 at 6-7. Lawton also alleges that “the university received [an] open records request from the Nebraska Republican Party which ‘brought to light email messages from members of the University's public relations staff proposing to have “surrogate(s) submit op-eds” to local papers to defend the administration against critics who accused it of having been too timid in handling Ms. Lawton's case.'” Filing 23 at 7 (no citation for quotations provided).
To continue reading
Request your trial