Robert Steinbuch v. University of Arkansas
2019 Ark. 356
| Ark. | 2019

Background

  • Robert Steinbuch, a UALR law‑school professor, requested student data under FOIA in 2015; the Law School produced a redacted spreadsheet citing student privacy.
  • Steinbuch sued UALR and university officials seeking unredacted records and later asserted AWBA, ACRA, academic‑freedom, tortious‑interference, and civil‑conspiracy claims; parties later settled the FOIA claim.
  • The circuit court sua sponte required joinder of implicated graduates as a defendant class and initially ordered Steinbuch to pay class counsel; that FOIA issue was later mooted by settlement.
  • The University moved for partial judgment on the pleadings; the court granted judgment on non‑FOIA claims (AWBA, ACRA, academic‑freedom, tortious‑interference, conspiracy) and dismissed the case with prejudice, but denied a statutory‑immunity motion by Schwartz and Beiner pending discovery.
  • Steinbuch appealed the dismissals; the University cross‑appealed several interlocutory rulings. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals and dismissed the cross‑appeal as moot.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Steinbuch must pay class counsel for student representatives in FOIA litigation No legal basis; FOIA forbids plaintiff fees and court cannot impose fee burden on FOIA plaintiffs Circuit court’s joinder and fee order was proper to protect student privacy interests Moot (FOIA claim settled); appellate court declined review of the fee order as it no longer affected a live controversy
Whether injunctive relief against state officials in official capacity is barred by sovereign immunity Injunctive relief should be available; equitable relief not necessarily barred Sovereign immunity bars suits against the State; equitable relief may be barred or subject to exceptions Issue unpreserved on appeal (court order unclear whether denial rested on sovereign immunity); appellate court declined to decide
Whether official‑capacity claims for monetary relief are barred by sovereign immunity AWBA, ACRA, and other monetary claims allowed against officials in their official capacities Monetary relief against the State is barred by Arkansas Constitution and precedent Affirmed: official‑capacity monetary claims are barred by sovereign immunity
Whether AWBA allows individual‑capacity suits against supervisors AWBA notice and statutory text permit suit against individuals AWBA defines "public employer" and provides causes of action against employers/institutions, not individuals Affirmed: AWBA does not authorize individual‑capacity claims
Whether ACRA retaliation/academic‑freedom claims can be brought against individuals Individual liability permissible under ACRA for interference/retaliation ACRA authorizes employment‑related claims only against employers, not individuals Affirmed: ACRA retaliation/interference claims must be brought against employers, not individuals
Whether tortious‑interference and civil‑conspiracy claims against university agents survive Agents acted maliciously and outside scope; tortious interference and conspiracy alleged Agents acted as university employees/agents; no third party for interference; no allegation they acted for personal benefit Affirmed dismissal: no third party for tortious interference; civil conspiracy fails where agents acted for employer absent personal benefit
Whether the University waived sovereign immunity by giving AWBA notice to employees Notice constitutes waiver or estoppel to assert sovereign immunity Statutory notice is mandatory and does not constitute a voluntary waiver of sovereignty Affirmed: mandatory notice is not a waiver; sovereign immunity bars AWBA claim against State

Key Cases Cited

  • LandsnPulaski v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 372 Ark. 40 (establishes standard for judgment on the pleadings review)
  • Ark. Lottery Comm’n v. Alpha Mktg., 2012 Ark. 23 (failure to obtain a ruling on sovereign immunity may preclude appellate review)
  • Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12 (Arkansas Constitution bars suits against the State; sovereign immunity controls)
  • Ark. State Med. Bd. v. Byers, 2017 Ark. 213 (discusses ultra vires/exception limits to sovereign immunity)
  • Banks v. Jones, 2019 Ark. 204 (reiterates sovereign immunity bars suits against state officials in official capacity)
  • Heslep v. Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n, 2019 Ark. 226 (equitable relief exceptions to sovereign immunity for arbitrary/bad‑faith acts)
  • Faulkner v. Ark. Children’s Hosp., 347 Ark. 941 (tortious‑interference requires a third party and acts outside scope of employment)
  • Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 345 Ark. 430 (corporate agents cannot conspire with their principal absent personal benefit)
  • Walther v. FLIS Enters., Inc., 2018 Ark. 64 (addresses treatment of sovereign immunity in pleading/waiver context)
  • Wilson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. 358 (sovereign immunity is an affirmative‑defense issue for preservation purposes)
Read the full case