Weinstein v. University of Connecticut
676 F. App'x 42
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Luke Weinstein, a faculty member at University of Connecticut School of Business, complained in May 2010 about alleged nepotism (protected speech).
- Weinstein served as Director of the Innovation Accelerator (IA) program; the University redesigned the IA and required directors to embrace the new design.
- From March–July 2010 Weinstein repeatedly opposed proposed IA changes and continued raising concerns after being asked to stop; he did not submit a reappointment application after a June extension.
- On July 28, 2010 Earley notified Weinstein he would not be reappointed as IA Director, citing Weinstein’s lack of commitment to the redesigned program (including comments at a July 19 meeting calling the program a “sinking ship”).
- Weinstein also filed a grievance in September 2010 and later was not reappointed as an Assistant Professor in Residence in May 2011; he sued for First Amendment retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Second Circuit affirmed in part (IA Director claim) and vacated/remanded in part (Assistant Professor claim) for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weinstein’s nepotism complaint and later grievance are First Amendment protected speech | Weinstein: his nepotism complaint (May 2010) and the September 2010 grievance were citizen speech on matters of public concern and thus protected | University: does not dispute May 25, 2010 complaint was public concern; argues other speech (opposition to IA changes) was not protected | Court: May 25 nepotism complaint treated as protected for appeal; speech opposing IA changes was not protected |
| Whether non-reappointment as IA Director was an adverse action causally connected to protected speech | Weinstein: non-reappointment resulted from retaliatory animus tied to his nepotism complaint | University/Earley: decision was motivated by Weinstein’s persistent opposition to IA redesign and failure to demonstrate buy-in (non-protected conduct); even absent nepotism complaint, reappointment would not have occurred | Court: Even assuming protected speech, Mt. Healthy defense succeeds as a matter of law — record shows Weinstein would not have been reappointed absent the nepotism complaint (summary judgment for defendants affirmed) |
| Whether Earley is entitled to qualified immunity for the IA Director non-reappointment | Weinstein: Earley not entitled to qualified immunity because he retaliated for protected speech | Earley: asserts qualified immunity (district court granted) | Court: did not need to decide due to alternative Mt. Healthy disposition (assumed no qualified immunity but still affirmed on causation grounds) |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate for Weinstein’s non-reappointment as Assistant Professor in 2011 | Weinstein: the September 2010 grievance is protected and causally connected to the 2011 adverse action; district court failed to address this claim | University: relied on previous defenses and factual record to justify non-reappointment | Court: vacated and remanded this portion — district court had not addressed the 2011 adverse-action retaliation claim in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (balancing public employee vs. government interest in discipline)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public employee speech protected only when made as a citizen)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (employee speech on public concern may be protected despite job duties)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (employer may prevail by showing it would have taken same action absent protected conduct)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (but-for causation required in retaliation claims)
- Smith v. County of Suffolk, 776 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (application of Mt. Healthy dual-motivation framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)