87 N.E.3d 481
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Maurice Eisenstein, a Purdue University Calumet associate professor, made multiple publicly offensive anti-Muslim statements in class and on social media in 2011–2012, prompting student and faculty complaints under Purdue’s Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures.
- Chancellor Thomas Keon appointed investigators; investigations found violations for retaliation (not harassment) and resulted in written reprimands to Eisenstein, which he appealed and lost; Keon later required removal of a blog link from Eisenstein’s university email signature.
- Eisenstein sued Purdue, Chancellor Keon, and several faculty (individually and in official capacities), asserting claims including § 1983 (First Amendment and due process), § 1985 conspiracy, concerted action (civil conspiracy) for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), breach of contract, and declaratory relief (void-for-vagueness/overbreadth of Policy).
- The trial court denied both defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Eisenstein’s cross-motion; defendants pursued interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment and denial of motion to strike portions of Eisenstein’s affidavit.
- The Court of Appeals (1) affirmed denial of Eisenstein’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (2) reversed denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in multiple respects, and (3) partially sustained striking analysis of portions of Eisenstein’s affidavit as conclusory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied motion to strike portions of Eisenstein’s affidavit | Affidavit statements admissible/personal knowledge supports claims | Portions are conclusory/speculative and should be struck | Court: strike the conclusory portions (e.g., motives, opinions); other factual paragraphs may stand |
| § 1983 claims (official-capacity and individual-capacity) | Policy enforcement and reprimand violated First Amendment and due process; seeks damages/declaratory relief | Purdue/officials have Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages; individual defendants entitled to absolute immunity for quasi-judicial acts | Court: reversed denial as to official-capacity § 1983 claims (immunity bars damages); individual defendants entitled to absolute immunity — summary judgment for defendants granted on § 1983 claims |
| § 1985 conspiracy claim | Defendants conspired to deprive civil rights by filing complaints and obtaining reprimands | Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages; individual defendants have absolute immunity; insufficient unlawful purpose/means | Court: reversed denial — official-capacity claims barred; individual-capacity claims barred by absolute immunity; conspiracy claim fails on merits |
| Concerted action (civil conspiracy) — defamation, IIED, civil rights | Defendants coordinated to damage reputation, cause emotional distress, deprive rights | Underlying torts lack sufficient allegations/evidence; absolute privilege and privilege for quasi-judicial complaints; not extreme/outrageous; complaint lacks specific defamatory statements | Court: summary judgment for defendants: conspiracy claim fails because underlying torts fail — defamation inadequately pleaded and privileged; IIED not extreme/outrageous; civil-rights conspiracy duplicative of § 1983/1985 claims |
| Breach of contract based on Handbook/Policy | Employment Form 19 incorporates university policies/handbook into contract; defendants breached procedures | Form 19 does not incorporate handbook as contract; handbook disclaims contractual effect; non-parties cannot breach plaintiff’s contract | Court: summary judgment for defendants — Policy/Procedures not contract terms; non-parties entitled to judgment |
| Declaratory relief (vagueness/overbreadth of retaliation provision) | Policy vague/overbroad, chilling protected speech; challenge as-applied and facial | Eisenstein lacks standing to challenge most provisions; retaliation provision applies clearly to his reprimand and is neither vague nor overbroad | Court: summary judgment for defendants on facial/vagueness/overbreadth challenges; Eisenstein has standing only as to retaliation provision, which is not vague or overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoettmer v. Wright, 992 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. 2013) (summary judgment standard and appellate review principles)
- Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 2008) (absolute privilege for complaints made pursuant to university grievance procedures/quasi-judicial context)
- Kashani v. Purdue Univ., 813 F.2d 843 (7th Cir.) (Eleventh Amendment bars damages against state university; officials may be sued for prospective relief)
- Gaff v. Indiana-Purdue Univ. of Fort Wayne, 45 N.E.3d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Purdue as an arm of the state; Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Severson v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 777 N.E.2d 1181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (state officials may be sued in their individual capacities under § 1983)
- Packer v. Trustees of Indiana Univ. Sch. of Med., 800 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (handbook disclaimers preclude contractual breach claims based on handbook policies)