Roman v. Trustees of Tufts College
461 Mass. 707
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Roman appeals after summary judgment for defendants on civil rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence claims related to the May 17, 2005 lecture and Champ’s treatment; she sought to attend a Tufts lecture on a private campus where the public was invited; Tufts had previously debt-based restrictions that allegedly blocked access to services including continuing education and lectures; Brogan told Roman outside the lecture she could not enter and warned of arrest; a Tufts police officer reiterated potential arrest; the exclusion occurred without a stated objective basis beyond unpaid bills; Roman alleged violations of G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 111 and asserted related tort claims; the court below granted summary judgment to Tufts on all counts; the case discusses First Amendment/art. 16 rights on private property and the public-private forum framework; the opinion also addresses negligence and IIED related to Champ’s veterinary care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roman’s rights secured by the US Constitution or art. 16 were interfered with by Tufts’ exclusion | Roman asserts a right to attend the public lecture and receive speech | Tufts, a private entity, is not a government actor; private property limits speech absent state action | No interference by a government actor; rights not violated; act claim fails on the record |
| Whether the exclusion policy was reasonable and content-neutral in a limited public forum | Policy singled out Roman due to unpaid debt and deprived her of access to speech | Policy tied to debt repayment, neutral to content and viewpoint; aimed at fiscal integrity | Policy deemed reasonable and content- and viewpoint-neutral; did not violate the act |
| Whether the conduct was extreme and outrageous for intentional infliction of emotional distress | Brogan’s and others’ conduct during exclusion was extreme and outrageous | Actions amounted to insults or minimal coercion, not extreme or outrageous | Actions not extreme and outrageous; no IIED liability |
| Whether Roman proved negligence relating to Champ’s treatment or harm | Defendants breached standard of veterinary care causing harm | No proven harm; alternative veterinary care pursued; no damages shown | No proof of harm; negligence claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581 (Mass. 1983) (First Amendment protections against government action; private actors may differ)
- Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Bd., 424 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1976) (Private shopping centers and speech rights in private forums)
- Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1972) (Private shopping center as nonpublic forum; free speech restrictions permissible)
- Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1946) (Public access vs. private town-like company town; speech rights on private property)
- PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1980) (State constitutional protections for private property with public access; forum analysis)
- Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int'l, Inc., 388 Mass. 83 (Mass. 1983) (State constitutional approach to speech on private property; articulation of broader art. 16 protections)
- Walker v. Georgetown Hous. Auth., 424 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1997) (Art. 16 protections beyond First Amendment scope in state context)
- Colo. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 378 Mass. 550 (Mass. 1979) (Art. 16 limits and interpretation in state constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158 (Pa. 1981) (State constitutional test for private property speech rights in light of forum)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (Public education forum; time/place/manner restrictions in limited forum)
- Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (S. Ct. 2010) (Three-category public forum framework; content-neutral restrictions in limited forum)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1974) (Regulation of speech access in restricted settings; alternatives exist)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (Reasonableness and neutrality in forum restrictions)