Judge dismisses all of McAdams claims against Marquette

[warriorchick]

Breaking news:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2017/05/04/judge-backs-marquette-universitys-suspension-professor-john-mcadams-over-blog-post/101292186/

[mu_hilltopper]

Time to dig into that other McAdams thread and see who thought this was going to bring ruin to Marquette.

[wadesworld]

As the judge should have.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Doesn't matter. Marquette doesn't stand a chance before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

[jsglow]

I think I'll take the time and read the full 33 page ruling tonight.

[Jockey]

As expected.

[muwarrior69]

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I think I'll take the time and read the full 33 page ruling tonight.

The fact that the judge gave deference to Lovell's decision tells you about all you need to know.

[tower912]

Yeah, that Lovell was right.

[Pakuni]

The fact that the judge gave deference to Lovell's decision tells you about all you need to know.

That he understands the law?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

That he understands the law?

Imagine that your employer fired you, you sued, and then the judge said I'm just going to defer to your employer's decision. Crazy.

[🏀]

Imagine that your employer fired you, you sued, and then the judge said I'm just going to defer to your employer's decision. Crazy.

Ha!

[GGGG]

Imagine that your employer fired you, you sued, and then the judge said I'm just going to defer to your employer's decision. Crazy.

"McAdams expressly agreed as a condition of his employment to abide by disciplinary procedures in faculty statutes, and his contract included a standard for cause, focusing on issues of professional duties and fitness as a university professor, Hansher wrote."

IOW, the lawsuit was frivolous. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

"McAdams expressly agreed as a condition of his employment to abide by disciplinary procedures in faculty statutes, and his contract included a standard for cause, focusing on issues of professional duties and fitness as a university professor, Hansher wrote."

IOW, the lawsuit was frivolous.

Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war.  There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.

[warriorchick]

Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war.  There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.

Did you even read the ruling? 

[jsglow]

"McAdams expressly agreed as a condition of his employment to abide by disciplinary procedures in faculty statutes, and his contract included a standard for cause, focusing on issues of professional duties and fitness as a university professor, Hansher wrote."

IOW, the lawsuit was frivolous.

I've read many, many legal opinions in my years.  This was very well reasoned.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Did you even read the ruling?

Yes.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I've read many, many legal opinions in my years.  This was very well reasoned.

The judge sided with a lower level Ohio state court over the D.C. and 7th Circuits on the issue of deference based on tenuous factual grounds.  Not that well reasoned.

[GGGG]

Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war.  There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.

The procedures that Marquette put in place, and agreed to by McAdams, don't agree with your assessment.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

The procedures that Marquette put in place, and agreed to by McAdams, don't agree with your assessment.

Name four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that you think will agree with Marquette.  If they do, I'll leave this board forever. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

McAdams was on probation for harassment (bullying)...he pushed it and got whacked. This isn't about his academic freedom but about his repeat offending of workplace rights. It is unfortunate as he is a brilliant mind, but confusing the two issues (academic and workplace rights) will not win him this case.

[jsglow]

The judge sided with a lower level Ohio state court over the D.C. and 7th Circuits on the issue of deference based on tenuous factual grounds.  Not that well reasoned.

The 'level' of a particular court case isn't relevant in the least.  What matters is the direct applicability of the cited case to the facts of the disputed matter.  Using your logic taken to the extreme, Brown v. Board of Education could govern.  Of course that's foolish.

[GGGG]

Name four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that you think will agree with Marquette.  If they do, I'll leave this board forever. 

I have no idea who on the Supreme Court will rule in what manner.  And I don't care if you leave or not.

This judge's ruling was well reasoned and reaffirms why Marquette acted in the manner it did.

[jsglow]

Name four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that you think will agree with Marquette.  If they do, I'll leave this board forever.

Why do you insist that judges look at everything through a political lens?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Why do you insist that judges look at everything through a political lens?

Who said anything about politics? It's about judicial philosophy on First Amendment issues.