McAdams v. Marquette Univ.

Decision Date06 July 2018
Docket NumberNo. 2017AP1240,2017AP1240
Citation914 N.W.2d 708,383 Wis.2d 358,2018 WI 88
Parties John MCADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

For the plaintiff-appellant, there were briefs (in the court of appeals) by Richard M. Esenberg, Brian McGrath, Clyde Taylor, Thomas C. Kamenick, and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Richard M. Esenberg.

For the defendant-respondent, there was a brief (in the court of appeals) by Stephen T. Trigg, Ralph A. Weber, and Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Ralph A. Weber.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Law and University Professors and Academics by Bernardo Cueto and Great Lakes Justice Center, La Crosse, with whom on the brief were Erin Elizabeth Mersino and Great Lakes Justice Center, Lansing, Michigan.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities by Thomas L. Shriner, Jr., Aaron R. Wegrzyn, and Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the State of Wisconsin by Ryan J. Walsh, chief deputy solicitor general, with whom on the brief were Brad D. Schimel, attorney general, and Amy C. Miller, assistant solicitor general.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of American Association of University Professors by Frederick Perillo and The Previant Law Firm, S.C., Milwaukee, with whom on the brief were Risa L. Lieberwitz and American Association of University Professors, and Aaron M. Nisenson, Nancy A. Long, and American Association of University Professors, Washington, D.C.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce by Michael B. Apfeld and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Milwaukee.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Thomas More Society by Andrew Bath, Esq. and Thomas More Society, Chicago, Illinois.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of The National Association of Scholars, Edward J. Erler, Duke Pesta, and Mark Zunac by James R. Troupis and Troupis Law Office, Cross Plains, with whom on the brief was Kenneth Chesebro, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities by Andrew A. Hitt, Michelle L. Dama, and Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Madison.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of National Association of Manufacturers by Bryan J. Cahill, Michael B. Apfeld, and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Milwaukee.

An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of University Academic Senate of Marquette University by Amy L. MacArdy and Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C., Milwaukee.

DANIEL KELLY, J.

¶ 1 Marquette University suspended a tenured faculty member because of a blog post criticizing an encounter between an instructor and a student. Dr. John McAdams took exception to his suspension, and brought a claim against the University for breach of contract. He asserts that the contract guarantees to him the right to be free of disciplinary repercussions for engaging in activity protected by either the doctrine of academic freedom or the United States Constitution. The University denies Dr. McAdams' right to litigate his breach of contract claim in our courts. Instead, it says, we must defer to its procedure for suspending and dismissing tenured faculty members. It claims we may not question its decision so long as it did not abuse its discretion, infringe any constitutional rights, act in bad faith, or engage in fraud.

¶ 2 The University is mistaken. We may question, and we do not defer. The University's internal dispute resolution process is not a substitute for Dr. McAdams' right to sue in our courts. The University's internal process may serve it well as an informal means of resolving disputes, but as a replacement for litigation in our courts, it is structurally flawed.

¶ 3 The undisputed facts show that the University breached its contract with Dr. McAdams when it suspended him for engaging in activity protected by the contract's guarantee of academic freedom. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court and remand this cause with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Dr. McAdams, conduct further proceedings to determine damages (which shall include back pay), and order the University to immediately reinstate Dr. McAdams with unimpaired rank, tenure, compensation, and benefits, as required by § 307.09 of the University's Statutes on Faculty Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (the "Faculty Statutes").1

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Dr. McAdams' Contract with the University

¶ 4 Dr. McAdams has been a professor of political science at Marquette University since 1977; he received tenure in 1989. His most recent contract is evidenced by an appointment letter dated March 1, 2014. It incorporates, and is therefore subject to, the University's Faculty Statutes, the Faculty Handbook, and the other documents identified in the agreement:

This appointment/contract is subject to the University's statutes on Faculty Appointment, Promotion and Tenure [the Faculty Statutes]. As a Marquette faculty member, you agree to comply with applicable Marquette academic and business policies, including those found in the Faculty Handbook, University Policies and Procedures (UPP) and the Marquette University Intellectual Property Policy.[2 ]

When we refer to the "Contract" in this opinion, we mean the appointment letter of March 1, 2014, along with all the authorities it incorporates.

¶ 5 "Tenure" at the University means:

[A] faculty status that fosters an environment of free inquiry without regard for the need to be considered for reappointment. Tenure is reserved for Regular Faculty who are recognized by the University as having the capacity to make unique, significant, and long-term future contributions to the educational mission of the University. Tenure is not a reward for services performed; it is a contract and property right granted in accordance with this Chapter[.]

Faculty Statute § 304.02. Tenured faculty are entitled to yearly reappointment:

Excepting cases of intervening termination for cause and cases of leave of absence or retirement as provided below, every tenured member of the Regular Faculty will be tendered notification of compensation, and every non-tenured member of the Regular Faculty not otherwise notified as provided in Section 304.07, will be tendered an annual reappointment, at a rank and compensation not less favorable than those which the faculty member then enjoys,....

Faculty Statute § 304.09; see also § 304.07 ("Unless tenured, no faculty member is entitled to reappointment.").

¶ 6 The Faculty Statutes forbid the suspension or dismissal of a faculty member without cause: "The cognizant appointing authority of the University may initiate and execute procedures by which a faculty member's reappointment may be denied or revoked, or any current appointment may be suspended or terminated, for cause as defined therein." Faculty Statute § 306.01.

B. The Incident

¶ 7 On November 9, 2014, Dr. McAdams published a post on his personal blog, the Marquette Warrior, in which he criticized a philosophy instructor, Cheryl Abbate, for her interchange with a student attending her Theory of Ethics class.3 Dr. McAdams' blog post said that, after Instructor Abbate listed a number of issues on the board, including "gay rights," she "airily said that 'everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.' " One of the students approached Instructor Abbate after class and said that the issue of gay rights should have been open for discussion. The blog post says Instructor Abbate replied that "some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions," that "you don't have a right in this class to make homophobic comments," that she would "take offense" if a student opposed women serving in certain roles, that a homosexual individual would take similar offense if a student opposed gay marriage, and that "[i]n this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated." The blog post says Instructor Abbate "then invited the student to drop the class." Dr. McAdams commented that Instructor Abbate employed "a tactic typical among liberals now," namely that "[o]pinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed 'offensive' and need to be shut up." Dr. McAdams then quoted Charles Krauthammer for the proposition that "[t]he proper word for that attitude is totalitarian." Finally, the blog post contained a clickable link to Instructor Abbate's contact information and to her own, publicly-available website.4

¶ 8 Two days later, after having received an email criticizing her conduct in this incident, Instructor Abbate filed a formal complaint against Dr. McAdams with the University. The incident came to national attention after other media outlets picked up the story from Dr. McAdams' blog post. Instructor Abbate subsequently received some strongly-worded and offensive communications (emails, blog comments, and letters) from third parties, including some that expressed violent thoughts. Almost all of the feedback occurred after the story spread beyond Dr. McAdams' blog post.

¶ 9 By letter dated December 16, 2014, Dean Richard Holz suspended Dr. McAdams (with pay), but identified no reason for doing so. Dean Holz's follow-up letter of January 30, 2015, identified the blog post of November 9, 2014, as the justification for the suspension. It also stated the post violated Faculty Statute § 306.03, and that, therefore, the University intended to revoke his tenure and terminate his employment because his "conduct clearly and substantially fails to meet the standards of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes University faculties."

¶ 10 The process for suspending or dismissing a tenured faculty member appears in chapters 306 and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Crenshaw v. Erskine Coll.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 9, 2020
    ...of a tenure contract to which it is an interested party." McConnell , 818 F.2d at 69. See also McAdams v. Marquette Univ. , 383 Wis.2d 358, 914 N.W.2d 708, 718 (2018) (refusing to defer to the university's determination that it did not breach its contract with a tenured professor when it su......
  • State ex rel. Citydeck Landing LLC v. Circuit Court for Brown Cnty., 2018AP291-W
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 21, 2019
    ...resolution has been selected."). ¶35 Arbitration is a matter of contract between private parties who enjoy that freedom. McAdams v. Marquette Univ., 2018 WI 88, ¶ 25, 383 Wis. 2d 358, 914 N.W.2d 708 ; Parsons v. Associated Banc-Corp, 2017 WI 37, ¶ 31, 374 Wis. 2d 513, 893 N.W.2d 212 ("Wisco......
  • Amazon Logistics, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • April 6, 2023
    ...Tech, 382 Wis.2d 496, ¶84. Therefore, we do not defer to LIRC's interpretation of an unambiguous contract. See McAdams v. Marquette Univ., 2018 WI 88, ¶51 n.17, 383 Wis.2d 358, 914 N.W.2d 708 (extending Tetra Tech's holding to questions of contract interpretation); Wisconsin End-User Gas As......
  • State ex rel. Massman v. City of Prescott
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 2019
    ...as there is no reviewable municipal decision and the case was disposed of on summary judgment, which we review de novo. See McAdams v. Marquette Univ. , 2018 WI 88, ¶19, 383 Wis. 2d 358, 914 N.W.2d 708. ¶10 The determination of which of these standards applies is interwoven with our conside......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO MUNICIPAL INTERPRETATION.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 49 No. 4, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...[https://perma.cc/F9NR-2QPG]. (76.) See McAdams v. Marquette Univ., 914 N.W.2d 708, 727-29 (Wis. (77.) Tetra Tech,9\4 N.W.2d at 45. (78.) Nestor Davidson has suggested that varying municipal organizational structures support varying approaches to deference: "[A] framework of judicial defere......
  • "a Kind of Continuing Dialogue": Reexamining the Audience's Role in Exempting Academic Freedom from Garcetti's Employee Speech Doctrine
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Law Review (FC Access) No. 55-2, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...see Smith, supra note 6, at 310-11.20. Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors, supra note 19, at 324.21. See McAdams v. Marquette Univ., 914 N.W.2d 708, 746 n.10 (Wis. 2018) (Bradley, J., concurring) ("As the first organization to develop codes of academic freedom, AAUP's statements remain the model......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT