Crosby v. University of Kentucky
863 F.3d 545
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard A. Crosby, a tenured University of Kentucky professor, served multi‑term four‑year appointments as Chair of the Department of Health Behavior and received a $5,000 annual chair stipend.
- In June 2015 the University’s Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity (OIEEO) investigated allegations about Crosby’s behavior; he was placed on paid administrative leave, barred from campus, and not told the identities of accusers.
- OIEEO issued a report describing numerous negative comments about Crosby (e.g., volatile, condescending, retaliatory, dishonest) and recommended removal as Chair; the Provost concurred and the Dean terminated Crosby’s chair appointment effective immediately while leaving his tenured faculty position intact and moving his office/support.
- Crosby demanded procedural protections (including a Faculty Hearing Panel under proposed Governing Regulation XX); the University declined because the regulation had not been promulgated and pursued an internal climate review instead.
- Crosby sued individual administrators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process/property and liberty claims), under the Kentucky Constitution, and for breach of contract; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted qualified immunity to defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crosby had a constitutionally protected property interest in the fixed four‑year chair appointment | Crosby: Governing Regulation VIII and related rules created a legitimate, non‑at‑will entitlement to complete his term and the chair stipend | Defendants: Regulations do not create an express for‑cause protection; Kentucky law presumes at‑will administrative appointments absent clear contractual language | No property interest; chairmanship was at‑will for due‑process purposes; qualified immunity for defendants |
| Whether Crosby was deprived of a liberty interest (right to reputation/name‑clearing hearing) by public stigmatizing statements tied to his removal | Crosby: public statements accusing him of dishonesty and lack of integrity in connection with his removal foreclosed employment opportunities and required a name‑clearing hearing | Defendants: Crosby remained a tenured faculty member (not terminated); statements concern administrative performance and less than the moral stigma required; law not clearly established | No clearly established liberty interest in this context; qualified immunity applies; claim dismissed |
| Whether Crosby could recover money damages under the Kentucky Constitution from individual officials | Crosby: state constitutional due‑process guaranteed and monetary relief available | Defendants: Kentucky law provides no authority for money damages against individuals for those state‑constitutional claims | Court declined to infer a claim for injunctive relief from boilerplate; monetary claim fails as matter of law |
| Whether Governing Regulation VIII or other rules created a contract entitling Crosby to breach‑of‑contract damages against individual defendants | Crosby: the regulation (four‑year term for chairs) created a de facto contract | Defendants: regulation is not a contract; no privity between Crosby and individual administrators | Breach‑of‑contract claim dismissed; no basis that regulation created contract and no privity with individuals |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified‑immunity standard for government officials)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two‑step qualified‑immunity analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (court may decide prongs of qualified immunity in either order)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property‑interest framework under Due Process Clause)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (limits of reputation‑based liberty interests; need alteration of legal status)
- Quinn v. Shirey, 293 F.3d 315 (Sixth Circuit five‑factor test for name‑clearing hearing entitlement)
- Ludwig v. Bd. of Trustees, 123 F.3d 404 (moral stigma/foreclosure of professional opportunities standard)
- Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647 (tenured professor removed from an administrative post — treatment of liberty/property issues)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly‑established‑law requirement for qualified immunity)