Adams v. Trustees of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550

Background

Adams, a UNCW criminology professor, sought promotion to full professor in 2004 after a strong teaching record and tenure since 1998.
His promotion file included extensive nonacademic writings and public speaking on religion, politics, and culture post-2000, some of which were not peer‑reviewed but cited as scholarly activity.
UNCW’s promotion process evaluates teaching, research, service, and professional development, requiring qualitative as well as quantitative evidence and noting that “excellence” in teaching is a high priority.
Senior department faculty opposed Adams’ promotion 7–2 after review; chair Cook did not recommend promotion based on overall scholarly productivity and other criteria, despite adequate teaching/service.
Cook edited Adams’ written explanation to emphasize lack of “tangible” research productivity and insufficient senior faculty support, while acknowledging some concerns across criteria.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims; Adams appealed, challenging Title VII religious discrimination, First Amendment retaliation/viewpoint discrimination, and equal protection.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment: whether Adams spoke as a citizen on matters of public concern	Adams argues his columns/books/public appearances are protected speech; retaliatory actions violate McVey factors.	Defendants contend Garcetti controls, and Adams spoke as part of official duties, not as a citizen.	Court remands for consideration of McVey prongs II–III; Garcetti does not apply here; speech held as citizen on public concerns.
Title VII discrimination: whether there is direct/indirect evidence of religious discrimination in promotion decision	Adams claims promotion denied due to his Christian/conservative beliefs.	Defendants argue no direct evidence and failure to show pretext under McDonnell Douglas.	District court erred in burden allocation; but on appeal, no material evidence of discriminatory intent found; Title VII claim affirmed or remanded as to First Amendment claims (contextual balance in opinion).
Equal protection: whether Adams was treated differently due to religious beliefs	Adams asserts selective treatment compared to left-leaning colleagues.	Record shows subjective scholarly judgment, not religious discrimination; no similarly situated comparator showing discriminatory intent.	District court’s grant of summary judgment on equal protection affirmed.
Qualified immunity: whether defendants are entitled to immunity on First Amendment claim	Adams contends rights were clearly established.	Defendants claim qualified immunity due to uncertain law post-Garcetti.	Court finds right to speak as a citizen on public concerns clearly established; remands for prongs II–III; qualified immunity denied.

Key Cases Cited

Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (academic personnel decisions reviewed with deference; discriminatory motive standard)
Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc; academic freedom and public university governance)
Smith v. Univ. of North Carolina, 632 F.2d 316 (4th Cir. 1980) (limits of judicial review of faculty promotion decisions)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (prima facie burden shifting framework for discrimination cases)
Hill v. Virginia Univ., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2004) (application of McDonnell Douglas with academic context)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties; limits on First Amendment protection)
Lee v. York Cnty. Sch. Div., 484 F.3d 687 (4th Cir. 2007) (discusses Garcetti applicability in academic settings)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public employee speech on matters of public concern vs. personal interest)
Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing student/employee speech vs. government efficiency)
Konig v. Mary Washington Coll., (cited as Jiminez v. Mary Washington Coll.) (1995) (pretext and discrimination standards in academic promotions)