4:18-cv-01669
M.D. Penn.Feb 13, 2023Background
- Dr. Jeffrey Krug was Dean of Bloomsburg University’s College of Business. In Nov. 2017 he assisted Angela Crossley in reporting alleged sexual misconduct by President Bashar Hanna to the university Title IX coordinator.
- PASSHE retained Ballard Spahr to investigate and issued a report alleging Krug disclosed confidential personnel/FERPA-protected information.
- PASSHE directed President Hanna be walled off; interim provost James Krause handled Krug’s pre-disciplinary conference (PDC). Krug objected to Krause as decisionmaker and to lack of counsel at the PDC.
- Krug was terminated effective March 21, 2018; the university circulated a statement characterizing his conduct as willful violations of policy and law.
- Krug sued asserting multiple claims: First Amendment retaliation (§ 1983), procedural due process (tenure/property and reputation/liberty), Title VII/Title IX/PHRA retaliation, and state whistleblower claims.
- The court denied both parties’ summary judgment motions, finding numerous disputed material facts (e.g., whether Krug was tenured, neutrality of decisionmaker, factual details of disclosures and investigation) precluded resolution on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment/Capacity of §1983 claims | Krug sued individual defendants in their personal capacities and seeks punitive damages, so Eleventh Amendment doesn't bar claims against individuals | Individual defendants acted in official capacity and thus are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | Court construed complaint in plaintiff's favor and denied Eleventh Amendment immunity to individual defendants (claims may proceed against them personally) |
| Qualified immunity (§1983 individuals) | Officials violated clearly established First Amendment and due process rights (retaliation for protected speech; tenure and reputation rights). | Officials reasonably acted on an independent investigation finding policy/Federal law violations; Krug was at-will so no clearly established right. | Denied on summary judgment: factual disputes (nature of investigation, predecisional conduct, neutrality) preclude deciding qualified immunity now; jury issues remain |
| First Amendment retaliation (protected speech/public concern/causation) | Assisting Crossley in reporting sexual harassment was citizen speech on a matter of public concern and was a substantial/motivating factor in termination | Speech was not citizen speech (mandated reporter/within job duties) or was merely a personal grievance; termination based on policy/FERPA violations unrelated to protected speech | Court found triable issues: speech plausibly citizen and on public concern (citing Third Circuit precedent); whether employer’s interest outweighs speech and causation are factual disputes for jury; summary judgment denied |
| Due process — tenure/property interest | Krug contends he had tenure (protected property interest) and was denied fair process by a biased decisionmaker and a sham proceeding | Defendants dispute that Krug was tenured (contend at-will status) and deny a due-process violation | Court held that whether Krug held tenure and whether process was constitutionally deficient are disputed factual issues; summary judgment denied |
| Due process — reputation (stigma-plus) | Krug alleges public statements and the circumstances of termination damaged reputation and triggered liberty interest protections | Defendants argue stigma-plus not satisfied and no due-process violation | Court found the constitutional right to reputation is clearly established but factual disputes (stigma, link to termination, procedural defects) preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for summary judgment and evaluating disputed material facts)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employee speech pursuant to job duties not protected)
- Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014) (speech concerning public employment is protected if not ordinarily part of job duties)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (test for public concern in employee speech)
- Azzaro v. County of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968 (3d Cir. 1997) (reports of sexual harassment by public officials can be matters of public concern)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) (tenure confers constitutionally protected property interest)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (no genuine issue for trial when record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)