You may recall our coverage of University of Central Florida Professor Charles Negy starting in the summer of 2020, as part of the purge of academia and campus mob rule post George Floyd.Prof. Negy’s case was chilling. Perhaps the worst I ever saw.He was maligned and tormented relentlessly by students, internet mobs, and importantly, UCF administrators. including the President of the University. I first wrote about him in The administrative torment of UCF Prof. Charles Negy:
I had heard of Charles Negy, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Central Florida (UCF). What I heard seemed like a particularly egregious example of cancel culture that is purging academia and imposing uniformity of opinion, particularly with regard to the Black Lives Matter movement. Having looked into it more, it’s worse than I realized.Negy’s alleged crime that sparked the controversy was two tweets questioning the orthodoxy of systemic racism and white privilege.One tweet, which no longer is available,said:
“If Afr. Americans as a group, had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?”
A second tweet, also no longer available, said:
“Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”
Rather than debate the merits or lack of merits in his opinions, a particularly aggressive attempt to get Negy fired ensued.
There was a Change.org petition with over 30,000 signatures, a Twitter hashtag was launched (#UCFFireHim) that trended, the student Senate passed a resolution, and there were protests on campus in which the President participated….
But it got worse. UCF subjected him to an 8-month expansive investigation, delving back decades to create a pretext to fire him, which they did. He took the school to arbitration and won reinstatement with back pay. Read these posts for even more background:
Negy then sued the school trustees and senior administrators. The trustees were dismissed based on sovereign immunity, but the senior administrators were denied dismissal.
In a ruling today, the Court denied the administrator’s motion for summary judgment, meaning the case almost certainly is going to trial.
From the Order on Summary Judgment:
Although he was reinstated to his position after taking his grievance to arbitration, (Cartwright Dep., Doc. 65, at 56), Plaintiff filed this suit. The Court previously granted in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, disposing of several claims. What remains are two claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983—Count I, against all Defendants, for First Amendment retaliation and Count II, against just Myers, for violation of his right to free speech. Defendants move for summary judgment on both.***Plaintiff has introduced sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to whether Meyers’ investigation and recommendation was biased. Because the decisionmakers here based their decision to terminate Plaintiff on the Investigative Report, Plaintiff may pursue a cat’s paw theory of liability [*] against Myers.
[*WAJ Note: See here for what cat’s paw theory means in employment law.]
Lastly, there is no dispute that Cartwright, Dupras, and Johnson were decisionmakers. (See Johnson Dep., Doc. 68, at 97 (noting that “the decision in this case really was . . . consultative and a collective one” and that Myers and Dupras were present at the meeting but not Cartwright); Dupras Dep., Doc. 66, at 130 (referencing Cartwright and Johnson and noting they “agreed collectively to make the decision not to give six months”)). While Johnson and Dupras gave conflicting testimony about Cartwright’s presence at the meeting, it is apparent Cartwright also had the power to effectuate Plaintiff’s termination.
***
Defendants maintain that Plaintiff was dismissed solely for his in-classroom behavior. While Plaintiff admitted that was the content of the investigation, (Negy Dep., Doc. 72, at 22), he contends the investigation itself was rigged from the start.
So, the Court next turns to pretext, Defendants’ comments, and circumstantial evidence. After the public outrage, Defendants Dupras, Cartwright, and Johnson all issued statements condemning Plaintiffs’ tweets that included information about where to file reports against professors. (Doc. 66 at 193; Doc. 68 at 257)….Taking all the factors into account and making all inferences in favor of Plaintiff, there is an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to fire him. While a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was fired for his classroom behavior, “[a] reasonable jury could [also] infer that [Defendants], on notice that their goal was illegal, used a relatively slow and deliberate process to terminate [Plaintiff].” Beckwith, 58 F.3d at 1566….
As Defendants tell it, Plaintiff had long been a menace upon UCF’s campus. So why act now? Defendants assert it was because students were made aware of where to file complaints against professors and were assured that UCF would take their complaints seriously, contrary to the discouragement they had previously faced…. On the other hand, as discussed above, Plaintiff has offered evidence that the real reason was his protected speech. This is a material issue of fact that is for the jury to determine, not the Court….
If this was a mixed motives case, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. A reasonable jury, however, could find that Defendants’ motives were entirely unlawful. As explained above, there is evidence showing they were motivated by their distaste for Plaintiff and his views along with public pressure.
***
Because Plaintiff has created an issue of fact as to pretext, the jury may yet find that Defendants acted with reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Therefore, granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages in favor of Defendants Dupras, Johnson, Cartwright, and Myers is inappropriate.
This is a huge interim victory for Prof. Negy. He’s going to trial against the key administrators on his First Amendment claims and punitive damages remains in the case. Of course, he will have to prove his case at trial, avoid having the judge dismiss it at the close of his case, and also convince a jury to rule in his favor.
This is the tortuous court path. Nothing comes easy. But Prof. Charles Negy has overcome incredible obstacles in his almost 5-year fight to save his job and his good name, and to hold the powerful to account.
Prof. Negy’s attorney, Samantha Harris, provided this comment on the ruling:
“This is a very important decision—not only for Dr. Negy, who is now looking forward to his day in court, but for all public university faculty who speak out on matters of public concern. The court’s ruling makes clear that university administrators are not above the Constitution and can be held personally accountable for violating core First Amendment rights.”
I want to go back to where I started. You can’t imagine what this man has been through, facing the cruel BLM fury and the arrogance of higher education administrators.
We will continue to follow the case.
======================
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY