A federal judge ruled that a former math professor’s lawsuit against the University of North Texas (UNT) can proceed after the university asked that it be dismissed. Nathaniel Hiers, a former adjunct professor at UNT, alleges the university violated his First Amendment rights by firing him after he mocked the concept of “microaggressions.”
Judge Sean D. Jordan delivered the ruling in a 69-page opinion. He wrote that the case dealt with the “bedrock constitutional principles protecting freedom of thought and expression.”
Jordan added that the case will come down to a single question: “What can a public employee say, and what can he choose not to say, without fear of reprisal from his employer?”
The central issue of the lawsuit stems from an incident in November 2019, when someone left a stack of flyers in the UNT faculty lounge explaining the concept of microaggressions.
The flyers defined microaggressions as “verbal and nonverbal behaviors” that “communicate negative, hostile, and derogatory messages to people rooted in their marginalized group membership.”
Also on the handouts was a list of examples of alleged microaggressions. The phrases included “America is a melting pot,” “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” and “America is the land of opportunity.”
According to the flyer, these phrases constitute microaggressions because they promote the “myth of meritocracy” and advocate for “color blindness.”
In response, Hiers wrote a message on the chalkboard in the faculty lounge that read, “Please don’t leave garbage lying around,” with an arrow pointing to one of the flyers.
Per the lawsuit, Hiers believes that the concept of microaggressions “hurts diversity and tolerance” because it “teaches people to see the worst in other people, promotes a culture of victimhood, and suppresses alternative viewpoints instead of encouraging growth and dialogue.”
The lawsuit also claims professors regularly left joking comments and other notes on the faculty lounge chalkboard.
The complaint alleges that Ralf Schmidt, chair of the math department, then sent an email to the department staff with a photo of Hier’s note, saying, “Would the person who did this please stop being a coward and see me in the chair’s office immediately. Thank you.”
Hiers met with Schmidt and claimed he was pressured to apologize and asked to attend “diversity training,” both of which he declined to do.
The following month, Hiers was notified that his employment was being terminated. According to his lawsuit, Hiers alleges that he was explicitly told he was being fired because of his chalkboard message and subsequent response.
Hiers also claims that just days before he left the comment on the chalkboard, the university had asked him to teach courses the next semester in an email, to which he agreed. However, he had not signed a formal job offer letter.
The lawsuit, which names UNT, Schmidt, and other university administrators as defendants, alleges Hiers’ termination was retaliatory and violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
UNT requested that the suit be dismissed, claiming that no constitutional violation occurred and that university officials had qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. UNT also wanted the case tossed because most of the university officials named in the lawsuit were not involved in the incident central to its claims.
However, Judge Jordan disagreed with many of the university’s statements, concluding that Hiers had “plausibly alleged” First Amendment violation through retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, unconstitutional conditions, and compelled speech.
“Taking these allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to Hiers, it is plausible that the university officials unconstitutionally punished Hiers for refusing to affirm a view — the concept of microaggressions — with which he disagrees,” Jordan wrote.
Judge Jordan also dismissed the university’s claims that its administrators had qualified immunity.
“Hiers has also met his burden of showing that the university officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on his retaliation claim because any reasonable university official would have known that it was unconstitutional to discontinue his employment because of his speech,” Jordan added.
The judge did dismiss some aspects of Hiers’ suit, including claims against the administrators as individuals rather than in their official capacity and his “breach of contract” allegation, as there was no formal job offer extended.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal group, is representing Hiers.
Tyson Langhofer, a senior counsel at ADF, said the judge’s ruling that the lawsuit can proceed is a good sign for his client’s chances of winning the case.
“Public universities can’t fire professors just because they don’t endorse every message someone communicates in the faculty lounge. By firing Dr. Hiers, the university sent an explicit message: ‘Agree with us or else,'” Langhofer said. “The university should start modeling, instead of opposing, that right for everyone.”