Jason Jorjani v. New Jersey Institute of Technology, 151 F.4th 135

Background

Jason Jorjani, a part-time NJIT philosophy lecturer, published and spoke for AltRight-affiliated outlets expressing racist and eugenic ideas and did not disclose his outside affiliations as required by NJIT policy.
A 2017 undercover meeting (partially recorded) and a New York Times piece publicized Jorjani’s remarks about race and politics, prompting university and faculty denunciations and some student/alumni complaints.
NJIT placed Jorjani on paid leave, commissioned an outside investigation, and declined to renew his contract based on alleged nondisclosure of outside activities, missed classes, and disruption following the publicity.
Jorjani sued NJIT for First Amendment retaliation, asserting his off-campus speech was protected and that NJIT’s nonrenewal was retaliatory; he also claimed NJIT waived privilege by disclosing the investigative report.
The District Court denied Jorjani’s privilege argument and granted summary judgment to NJIT, holding Jorjani’s speech was unprotected because the university’s interest in avoiding disruption outweighed his speech interests.
The Third Circuit reversed, holding the record does not support sufficient disruption to overcome Jorjani’s First Amendment interest; the court affirmed no waiver of privilege and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether off-campus, private speech by a public university lecturer is protected by the First Amendment	Jorjani: his comments were made as a private citizen on matters of public concern and are protected under Pickering	NJIT: the speech caused significant disruption to campus operations and the educational environment, justifying nonrenewal	Court: Speech was as citizen and on public concern; NJIT failed to show disruption sufficient to outweigh First Amendment interest — speech protected
Whether Pickering applies to extramural/off-duty speech or requires malice	Jorjani: Pickering should not govern extramural speech or should require malice	NJIT: Pickering applies and the disruption analysis supports the employer’s actions	Court: Pickering applies to extramural/off-duty speech; malice requirement only arises in defamation contexts, not here
Whether the actual disruption asserted (student complaints, faculty denunciations, administrative burdens) justified adverse employment action	Jorjani: complaints were minimal/speculative and did not impair teaching or operations	NJIT: faculty and student reactions and increased administrative workload constituted disruption	Court: Record shows only minor complaints ("possibly" ~50 emails, few calls), no protests or evidence of impaired teaching; disruption insufficient
Whether NJIT waived attorney-client privilege by disclosing the investigatory report and involving General Counsel	Jorjani: disclosure and General Counsel involvement waived privilege over related communications	NJIT: report was factual and disclosure did not waive privilege	Court: No waiver — the investigative report was factual and counsel’s participation did not effect waiver

Key Cases Cited

Pickering v. Bd. of Ed., 391 U.S. 563 (Balancing government employer interest against employee speech on matters of public concern)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (Defining public concern and limits on employer discipline for employee speech)
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (Applying Pickering to off-duty speech by a public employee)
City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (Per curiam application of Pickering principles to off-duty conduct)
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (Protection of unpopular or offensive speech under the First Amendment)
Fenico v. City of Philadelphia, 70 F.4th 151 (3d Cir.) (Applying Pickering to social-media/race-related speech by public employees)
Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.) (Academic context: interest in exposure to contrarian views in higher education)
Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 805 F.3d 454 (Third Circuit) (Types of disruption relevant to Pickering analysis)