Judge Dismisses Prof’s Lawsuit Against Community College in California Over DEI Policies
“As Johnson has failed to establish standing, his complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.”
It just figures that this would happen in California. DEI policies have been losing legal battles across the country in recent months.
Inside Higher Ed reports:
Faculty Lawsuit Over California Community Colleges’ DEI Rules Dismissed
A federal district judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Daymon Johnson, a Bakersfield College history professor, against his college and community college district in which he alleged systemwide rules to ensure employees uphold diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility values chilled his free speech.
The rules, which were proposed by the chancellor’s office and went into effect last fall, set “a DEIA competency and criteria framework that can serve as a minimum standard for evaluating all California Community College employees,” according to a May 2023 memorandum from system leaders offering guidance on the rule.
The court decision, issued Monday, rejects an earlier recommendation by a magistrate judge to suspend the rules.
“Ultimately, Johnson has not adequately alleged that he faces an injury that is ‘actual or imminent,’ and he has therefore failed to invoke this court’s federal jurisdiction,” the court order reads. “As Johnson has failed to establish standing, his complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.”
Amy M. Costa, president of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors, said in a statement that the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California “reaffirms” the system’s “commitment to DEIA and our efforts to ensure we serve ALL of our students by ensuring our campuses foster belonging.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So, basically, he has to wait until after he gets suspended, or fired, or otherwise “harmed” before he can sue.
So, as long as the school is “stealthy” about the way they punish him, they can do whatever they want.
Got it.
He didn’t approach it correctly. DEI stuff is a case of religious discrimination. The harm is in forcing you to make statements against your belief.
1. He may not be religious, or his objection to DEI may not be religious. Not every belief is religious, and when bringing a free exercise claim you have to prove that you have a sincere religious belief in whatever it is you’re claiming.
2. Even if his objection to DEI actually is religious, and he can prove it, he’d have the exact same problem; to establish standing he’d have to prove that his religious exercise is actually being chilled, just as he now had to prove his speech is actually being chilled. So he’d be no better off.
GWB is saying that DEI is a religion, they just don’t call it one
1. It’s not a religion. Religion is not just anything you want.
2. Even if it were one, that would only mean you couldn’t discriminate against DEI believers; but this professor is an opponent of DEI, and that is certainly not a religion, so how does discrimination against DEI opponents violate their free exercise of religion?
The decision is here.
The core of it seems to be that to get pre-enforcement relief the plaintiff must specify in what way he intends to violate the law he’s challenging, and that it is in fact likely to be a violation. The judge found that Johnson’s claims fall short of this standard. He’s not obviously wrong, not in a way that can be clearly demonstrated to an appeals court, but I think a judge who was less of a committed leftist would have found standing.
Here’s a much more detailed news story that clearly summarizes the basis for this decision. The judge’s leftist bias is not overt, but it clearly influences him in his assessment of the likelihood that Johnson’s rights are at risk.
Oops. I meant to close that <a> tag.