A Community College District terminated a sociology instructor for misconduct, including intimidating a student in class during a discussion of same-sex marriage, making derogatory statements in class concerning women, and wrongful conduct during an investigation of the instructor. In May 2018, the professor arbitrated his dismissal and argued that the District had insufficient cause to warrant his discipline. He also invoked his rights to academic freedom. The arbitrator reduced the termination to a 90-day suspension. In November 2018, the District filed a Writ of Mandamus in state court but the trial court upheld the arbitrator’s decision. The District appealed and in October 2021, the court of appeal ruled in favor of the District and reinstated the termination.
The professor then filed an action in federal court in 2023, alleging the same factual arguments he asserted during the arbitration. He argued that his termination violated his academic freedom rights protected by the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. The District won a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of collateral estoppel and res judicata. These doctrines prevent a party from re-litigating issues and cases, respectively, that have already been determined in a final judgment in a prior case. The professor appealed, but the District articulated in appellate briefing why collateral estoppel and res judicata principles barred Plaintiff’s claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the District’s arguments and ruled in favor of the District, upholding the trial court’s dismissal.
Schools and colleges should utilize any favorable outcome at a disciplinary hearing or arbitration proceeding to seek dismissal of subsequent civil lawsuits filed based on the same facts. It is important to highlight the ability and obligation of the employee to raise any and all arguments in their disciplinary hearing or arbitration proceeding and use those favorable outcomes against the employee in any later action.