284 F. Supp. 3d 792
M.D. La.2018Background
- Teresa Buchanan, tenured LSU associate professor (PK-3 program), was investigated after complaints from a school superintendent and multiple students alleging profanity, sexually explicit remarks, and intimidating conduct in classroom and mentoring settings.
- Human Resources (Reinoso) found Buchanan's conduct violated LSU sexual-harassment policies (PS-73, PS-95); Dean Andrew pursued PS-104 dismissal proceedings; a faculty committee found policy violations but recommended censure (not dismissal).
- Chancellor Alexander recommended dismissal notwithstanding the committee’s lesser sanction; the Board terminated Buchanan on June 19, 2015.
- Buchanan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment (free speech/academic freedom) violations, substantive and procedural due process violations, and facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to LSU’s harassment policies; she sought reinstatement and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- Court considered motions for summary judgment and granted judgment for defendants, dismissing Buchanan’s claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment / academic freedom — was Buchanan’s classroom speech protected and did it motivate termination? | Buchanan: her profanity/sex-related remarks were pedagogical, protected speech and academic freedom; termination was retaliation. | Defendants: speech was made pursuant to official duties, not a matter of public concern; conduct disrupted learning and justified discipline. | Court: Speech not protected under Garcetti/Pickering—was part of official duties, not public concern; defendants entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Statute of limitations for claims against certain administrators (Andrew, Reinoso, Monaco) | Buchanan did not directly contest accrual dates. | Defendants: discrete retaliatory acts accrued when recommendations/reports were made; earlier acts are time-barred. | Court: First Amendment claims against Andrew, Reinoso, Monaco are prescribed and dismissed. |
| Facial and as-applied challenge to LSU sexual-harassment policies (PS-73, PS-95) | Buchanan: policies are overbroad/vague and lack an objective/severe-and-pervasive standard; chill protected speech. | Defendants: policies include objective language and examples; they mirror federal guidance; policies are constitutional and defendants reasonably relied on them. | Court: Buchanan has standing; facial challenge fails (policies read to include objective "so offensive to a reasonable person" standard); as-applied challenge fails; qualified immunity in any event. |
| Procedural and substantive due process (tenure protections) | Buchanan: investigation and findings were vague, biased, and denied meaningful notice and opportunity to defend; decision arbitrary/capricious. | Defendants: Buchanan received notice, pre-hearing meetings, full PS-104 hearing, appeal opportunity; decisions were supported by record. | Court: No genuine dispute—procedural protections satisfied; termination not arbitrary or capricious; due process claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected by First Amendment)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing employee speech vs. employer interests)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (distinguishing public concern from personal workplace grievances)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX standard requires severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts accrue individually; limits on aggregating discrete retaliatory acts)
- Culbertson v. Lykos, 790 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2015) (recommender liability and qualified immunity analysis for non-final decisionmakers)
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 798 F.2d 748 (5th Cir.) (requiring affirmative causal link between actor and adverse decision)
- Beattie v. Madison County School Dist., 254 F.3d 595 (5th Cir. 2001) (discussion of liability where board makes final decision)
- Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1986) (classroom profanity may be unprotected when not germane and harms captive audience)
- DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008) (overbreadth concerns where policy lacks a severity/pervasiveness requirement)
- Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley Coll., 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 1996) (invalidating an overbroad harassment policy as applied but recognizing qualified immunity for administrators)
- Vega v. Miller, 273 F.3d 460 (2d Cir. 2001) (qualified immunity for disciplining professor given vulgar classroom conduct; administrators reasonably believed discipline permissible)