William Felkner v. Rhode Island College
203 A.3d 433
R.I.2019Background
- Plaintiff William Felkner, a self-described conservative-libertarian MSW student at Rhode Island College (RIC), sued RIC and several faculty/administrators alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations and related state-law claims arising from grading, course assignments, faculty criticism, ethics charges, recording of conversations, field-placement approvals, and delays in completing his integrative project.
- Key classroom incidents: objections to screening of Fahrenheit 9/11; professors’ emails indicating a values-based/progressive orientation in the School of Social Work (SSW); assignments requiring students to advocate particular policy positions; group-grade disaggregation and a lower course grade after Felkner refused to follow assignment directives.
- Felkner secretly recorded a meeting with Professor Pearlmutter, posted excerpts online, and was the subject of an Academic Standing Committee (ASC) disciplinary hearing that found a violation of the NASW Code of Ethics for deceptive recordings and recommended he pledge not to record without consent or face dismissal.
- Procedurally: initial complaint (2007); amended complaint (2013) adding due-process and §1985(3) conspiracy claims; defendants’ renewed summary-judgment motion (2015) granted by the hearing justice on all counts and punitive-damages claim previously struck after a Palmisano hearing; appeal to Rhode Island Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court disposition: vacated summary judgment as to several First Amendment claims (free-speech, compelled speech/unconstitutional conditions, some retaliation), affirmed summary judgment on equal protection, procedural due process, §1985 conspiracy, and the order striking punitive damages; remanded for trial on the vacated counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case (renewed summary judgment) | Earlier denial of summary judgment bars renewed motion. | Expanded record and discovery justify reconsideration. | Denied; trial justice properly considered renewed motion on the expanded record. |
| Free speech / academic freedom | Faculty and program actions (grading, assignments, classroom treatment, refusal to permit certain projects/placements) suppressed or punished his conservative viewpoint. | Pedagogical decisions and grading fall within academic discretion and were related to legitimate curricular goals. | Vacated summary judgment as to free-speech claim (genuine issues of material fact exist whether actions were pretextual or pedagogical); claim proceeds to trial. |
| Retaliation (First Amendment) | Penalized (grades, ethics charges, delay/graduation obstacles, project denials) in response to protected speech and online criticism. | Some actions (e.g., discipline for deceptive secret recordings) were permissible responses to conduct that disrupted educational environment or invaded privacy; others were legitimate academic decisions. | Affirmed summary judgment for retaliation claim to the extent it relied on punishment for secret recordings (no dispute); otherwise vacated as factual issues remain about whether speech motivated adverse actions. |
| Compelled speech / Unconstitutional conditions | Course rules and lobbying assignments effectively forced him to espouse contrary political views or conditioned degree on surrendering views. | Assignments requiring advocacy from assigned perspectives are legitimate pedagogical tools; he was not actually forced to lobby publicly. | Vacated summary judgment: factual disputes whether requirements were germane to pedagogy or constituted impermissible compelled speech/conditions. |
| Equal protection | Treated differently from similarly situated students because of political viewpoint. | Academic decisions (grading, extensions, project approvals) are discretionary and rationally related to legitimate academic purposes; no suspect classification. | Affirmed summary judgment: class-of-one theory inappropriate in academic context; no rational-basis violation shown. |
| Procedural due process (ASC hearings) | ASC deprived him of adequate notice, cross-examination, counsel, record, and meaningful appeal. | ASC provided notice and hearings; no constitutional right to counsel or full confrontation in such academic/disciplinary proceedings; procedures were sufficient. | Affirmed summary judgment: no material factual dispute that constitutional minimums (notice and opportunity to be heard) were provided. |
| §1985(3) conspiracy | Faculty coordinated to deny his rights because of political beliefs. | §1985(3) requires class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus (race or other protected class); political affiliation is not a protected class under §1985(3). | Affirmed summary judgment: conspiracy claim fails because plaintiff did not allege a protected class-based animus under §1985(3). |
| Qualified immunity | N/A (plaintiff contends immunity not applicable to some individual defendants). | Individual defendants raise qualified-immunity defense if any constitutional right was not clearly established. | Not decided by Supreme Court on merits; remanded for trial court to consider in first instance if defendants renew the defense. |
| Punitive damages | Facts show reckless or callous indifference warranting punitive damages. | Plaintiff did not make prima facie showing of malice/recklessness to justify discovery of defendants’ financials. | Affirmed striking of punitive-damages claim after Palmisano hearing: plaintiff failed to show requisite intent or recklessness. |
Key Cases Cited
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (First Amendment bars government from compelling affirmation of orthodoxy)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech protected unless it materially disrupts school or infringes others' rights)
- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (school officials may regulate school-sponsored speech if reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns)
- Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (courts should defer to academic judgments unless they are a substantial departure from accepted academic norms)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (students have property/livelihood interests in education entitling them to notice and hearing)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (punitive damages under §1983 require evil motive or reckless/callous indifference)
- Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (punitive-damages standard in §1983 actions)
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limits class-of-one equal-protection claims in contexts involving discretionary government decisionmaking)