Salaita v. Kennedy

• Decision Date: 06 August 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 15 C 924
• Parties: Steven Salaita, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Kennedy, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

118 F.Supp.3d 1068

Steven Salaita, Plaintiff,

v.Christopher Kennedy, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 15 C 924

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed August 6, 2015

Jonathan I. Loevy, Arthur R. Loevy, Gretchen Elizabeth Helfrich, Steven Edwards Art, Anand Swaminathan, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, Baher Azmy, Maria Couri Lahood, Omar Saad Shakir, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Christopher B. Wilson, Josephine Tung, Keith G. Klein, Richard Michael Rothblatt, Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge, United States District Court

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Steven Salaita's Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 32]. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is granted to the extent that Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX are dismissed with prejudice, and denied as to the rest.

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves Dr. Steven Salaita's employment status with the University of Illinois following controversial statements he made via Twitter. The following facts are culled from the Complaint, which the Court must accept as true in deciding a motion to dismiss. Dr. Salaita was a tenured professor at Virginia Tech when he discovered that the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign ("the University") was looking for a professor in its American Indian Studies program. Dr. Salaita, who has expertise in Native American and Indigenous Studies, applied for the position, and the University began its vetting process. The process culminated in the University sending a letter to Dr. Salaita that is largely the subject of this lawsuit.

Because the letter is the source of most of the parties' disagreements, the Court reproduces the relevant portions of it here in full:

Dear Professor Salaita:

Upon the recommendation of Professor Jodi Byrd, Acting Director of the American Indian Studies, I am pleased to offer you a faculty position in that department at the rank of Associate Professor at an academic year (nine-month) salary of $85,000 paid over twelve months, effective [August 16], 2014. This appointment will carry indefinite tenure. This recommendation for appointment is subject to approval by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

...

At the University of Illinois, like at most universities in this country, we subscribe to the principles of academic freedom and tenure laid down by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the [AAUP] has been since 1940 the foundation document in this country covering the freedoms and obligations of tenure.... I am enclosing copies of these documents for your information, and commend them to your attention.

We would appreciate learning of your decision by 10/14/2013. I have included an enclosure describing some of the general terms of employment at the University. If you choose to accept our invitation, we would appreciate your returning a photocopy of this letter with the form at the bottom completed and signed. When you arrive on campus, you will be asked to present proof of your citizenship and eligibility to work (see the I–9 form). If you are not a U.S. citizen, this offer will be contingent upon your being able to secure the appropriate visa status. Should you accept our offer, our Office of International Faculty and Staff Affairs is available to assist you with this process.

Please let me express my sincere enthusiasm about your joining us. The University ... offers a wonderfully supportive community, and it has always taken a high interest in its newcomers. I feel sure that your career can flourish here, and I hope earnestly that you will accept our invitation.

(Defs.' Mem. in Support of its Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mem."), Ex. 1, ECF No. 33–1). The letter is then signed by Interim Dean Brian Ross and includes a place for Dr. Salaita to sign. The signature page says "I accept the above offer of October 3, 2013" and includes spaces for Dr. Salaita's date of birth, citizenship status, and signature. Dr. Salaita signed this page and returned it on October 9, 2013, and the parties agreed that Dr. Salaita would start in his new position on August 16, 2014. The University also assigned Dr. Salaita two courses for the fall semester, assigned him an office, and provided him a University email address.

With the expectation that he would be starting at the University in August, Dr. Salaita resigned his position at Virginia Tech and started the process of moving his family to Illinois. The University paid a majority of Dr. Salaita's moving expenses. During this time, a skirmish between Palestine and Israel resulted in the death of "approximately 2100 Palestinians, including more than 500 children." (Pl.'s Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 43 at 4). Dr. Salaita took to his personal Twitter account to voice his displeasure. The Court need not reproduce Dr. Salaita's tweets verbatim; to put it mildly, they were critical of Israel's actions and used harsh, often profanity-laden rhetoric.

Dr. Salaita's tweets soon garnered media coverage, which prompted the University to respond publicly regarding Dr. Salaita's employment. In response to one newspaper's request for comment, a University spokesperson said that "Professor Salaita will begin his employment with the University on Aug. 16, 2014. He will be an associate Professor and will teach American Indian Studies courses." (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 69). The spokesperson went on to tout the University's policy of "recognize[ing] the freedom-of-speech rights of all our employees ." (Id. (emphasis added)).

Despite the initial show of support, however, the University soon changed its tune. Letters and emails obtained via Illinois' Freedom of Information Act revealed that students, alumni, and donors wrote to the University's Chancellor, Phyllis Wise ("Wise"), to voice their concerns over Dr. Salaita joining the University. One writer in particular claimed to be a "multiple 6 figure donor" who would be ceasing support of the University because of Dr. Salaita and his tweets.

Two other specific interactions are critical to Dr. Salaita's Complaint. The first involves an unknown donor who met with Chancellor Wise and provided her a two-page memo about the situation. (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 80). Wise ultimately destroyed the memo, but an email Wise sent University officials summarized it as follows: "He [the unknown donor] gave me [Chancellor Wise] a two-pager filled with information on Professor Salaita and said how we handle the situation will be very telling." (Id. ) The second interaction involves a particularly wealthy donor who asked to meet with Chancellor Wise to "share his thoughts about the University's hiring of Professor Salaita." (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 79). The meeting took place on August 1, 2014, but what was said during the meeting is currently unknown at this early stage in the litigation. What is known, however, is that Chancellor Wise sent Dr. Salaita a letter on the same day stating that Dr. Salaita's "appointment will not be recommended" and that the University would "not be in a position to appoint [him] to the faculty of the University." (Defs.' Mem., Ex. A, ECF No. 33–1).

The University's Board of Trustees met on September 11, 2014 to vote on new faculty appointments. The Board unanimously and summarily appointed 120 new faculty members in a single vote, and then voted separately on Dr. Salaita's appointment. Chancellor Wise stated that, despite the earlier letter affirming that Dr. Salaita would be recommended for appointment, she was not recommending him. The Board then voted eight-to-one to deny Dr. Salaita's appointment. The vote occurred one month after the start of the semester, when the other appointed professors had already started teaching, and one month after Dr. Salaita's agreed-upon start date. According to the Complaint, this is the first time in the University's history that something like this has happened.

Following the Board's vote, Dr. Salaita filed this lawsuit. The Complaint contains nine counts against various Defendants. Count I alleges that the Board of Trustees, Chancellor Wise, and the University's President and Vice President violated § 1983 by retaliating against Dr. Salaita for exercising his First Amendment free speech rights. Count II alleges that the same Defendants robbed Dr. Salaita of his procedural due process rights by depriving him of his job without any pre- or post-deprivation measures. Count III alleges that all Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Dr. Salaita of his job in violation of § 1985. Count IV alleges promissory estoppel against the Trustee Defendants. Count V alleges breach of contract against the Trustee Defendants. Counts VI and VII alleges that the various donor Defendants tortiously interfered with Dr. Salaita's contractual and business relations. Count VIII alleges that all Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Salaita. Finally, Count IX is a state-law spoliation of evidence claim against Chancellor Wise for destroying the two-page memo. Defendants now move to dismiss all counts under Rule 12(b)(6).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir.2009). A complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 410 (7th Cir.1987). A court need not accept as true "legal conclusions, or threadbare recitals of the...