293 P.3d 16
Colo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Churchill, a tenured CU professor, faced a multi-step investigation for alleged research misconduct following publicity of his 9/11 essay.
- CU’s Board of Regents approved an extensive inquiry, including SCRM, Inquiry and Investigative Committees, and a P&T hearing.
- The P&T Committee found substantial misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; the President recommended dismissal; the Regents dismissed Churchill 8–1.
- Churchill sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting retaliation for his First Amendment speech and challenging the process as an adverse employment action.
- Before trial, the University waived Eleventh Amendment immunity; quasi-judicial immunity was preserved and argued post-verdict, with the trial court later granting the University judgment on the immunity issue.
- The district court directed a verdict on the adverse-employment-action claim and later, after post-trial briefing, denied reinstatement or front pay under immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Regents' actions were quasi-judicial | Churchill argues the Regents lacked independence and bias invalidates immunity | Regents acted with independence, safeguards, and processes akin to adjudication | Yes, Regents entitled to quasi-judicial immunity |
| Adequacy of independence and bias concerns | Bias tainted proceedings, recusal would be required | Record shows safeguards; no bias undermines immunity | Independent review sufficient; immunity upheld |
| Adequacy of appellate review (C.R.C.P. 106) | 106 review is inadequate to safeguard immunity | 106(a)(4) provides adequate review | 106 review adequate for quasi-judicial determination |
| Availability of quasi-judicial immunity to equitable relief | Equitable relief (reinstatement/front pay) not barred by immunity | Immunity extends to equitable relief; no declaratory relief issue | Equitable relief barred; immunity preserved |
| Whether the investigation was an adverse employment action | Investigation itself harmed Churchill and altered terms of employment | Investigation did not change terms of employment; not adverse action | Directed verdict proper; investigation not an adverse employment action |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1985) (Butz factors inform quasi-judicial immunity analysis)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (Judicial process features bolster immunity)
- Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Vill., 757 P.2d 626 (Colo. 1988) (Three factors identify quasi-judicial action in local government decisions)
- Snyder v. City of Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421, 542 P.2d 371 (Colo. 1975) (Foundational quasi-judicial-action framework in Colorado law)
- Hoffler v. Colorado Dept. of Corr., 27 P.3d 371 (Colo. 2001) (Quasi-judicial proceedings with safeguards resemble judicial process)
- Widder v. Durango Sch. Dist. No. 9-R, 85 P.3d 518 (Colo. 2004) (Review of quasi-judicial school-board decisions under 106(a)(4))