Judge dismisses all of McAdams claims against Marquette

[wadesworld]

McAdams was given a chance to save his job.  He's too hard headed to do so so he chose to take his firing.  Good riddance if you ask me.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

That's not why he was fired.  C'mon...at least pretend to be objective here.

Then what was he fired for?  Using her name in his blog?  You think McAdams would have been fired for just referencing her name if no one had ever contacted her?  That's even more Orwellian.

[jsglow]

He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one.  And with respect to Bartlow, it is relevant whether she was terminated for cause or encouraged to leave with a severance package.

So I'm now putting you in that group of scoopers who never give up but simply continue to argue their point no matter how tortured their position is. 

I have no idea if Mike gave her a couple months pay to go away.  Do you really think he was going to take the hardscrabble path of 'firing for cause' over an offensive mural? The bottom line is the mural was whitewashed by Sunday night and she was gone by Tuesday when he learned of the whole thing over that same weekend.  I'll share with you that I was marginally 'in the loop' in real time.  Those are the facts.  And they are not in dispute.

I'm done arguing with you Guerrero.  Have a great day.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

The guy didn't just publish her name, he put a link in his blog to her contact information and her personal website.  You cannot tell me that doing that is not an obvious invitation to his readers to harrass her.  And for a professor to do that to a student is inexcusable.

Let's drop the whole, "Abate was a delicate flower that needed protection."  She was a big girl, teaching college courses, and openly publishing her ideas to the world on the Internet.  If she didn't want to attract attention to her ideas, she didn't need to put up a blog for the world to comment on.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

So I'm now putting you in that group of scoopers who never give up but simply continue to argue their point no matter how tortured their position is. 

I have no idea if Mike gave her a couple months pay to go away.  Do you really think he was going to take the hardscrabble path of 'firing for cause' over an offensive mural? The bottom line is the mural was whitewashed by Sunday night and she was gone by Tuesday when he learned of the whole thing over that same weekend.  I'll share with you that I was marginally 'in the loop' in real time.  Those are the facts.  And they are not in dispute.

I'm done arguing with you Guerrero.  Have a great day.

That's fine, I'm just pointing out that things aren't irrelevant just because you say so. 

[GGGG]

It was well detailed in the Faculty Hearing Committee report why he was fired. 

[GGGG]

Let's drop the whole, "Abate was a delicate flower that needed protection."  She was a big girl, teaching college courses, and openly publishing her ideas to the world on the Internet.  If she didn't want to attract attention to her ideas, she didn't need to put up a blog for the world to comment on.

OK here you go.

You are going down this rabbit hole again.  She was a student.  Graduate students teaching courses are still students. 

You have gone well beyond making legal arguments and are just going back to the same old arguments that McAdams made and were rejected by the Marquette faculty, the president and now the courts.  Not really interested in rehashing that.

[jsglow]

OK here you go.

You are going down this rabbit hole again.  She was a student.  Graduate students teaching courses are still students. 

You have gone well beyond making legal arguments and are just going back to the same old arguments that McAdams made and were rejected by the Marquette faculty, the president and now the courts.  Not really interested in rehashing that.

Word.

[HouWarrior]

This has been an interesting thread.

I read the opinion.

I am an attorney ( would never bring up my also high rankings and law review....ungentlemanly, EG....I see they egged you tho), ...

....but I learned all I know by staying at a Holiday Inn last night.

Many tenets of McAdams claims merited a MSJ blowout. All of the tort theories were not worth raising. The Contract, Review board, process, etc are internal and regularly given broad deference, especially as here it seemed to have lots of fair due process.

I will agree with EG that ....the only  path of any real interest/discussion by courts is the free speech point. Even as MUFaculty handbook pointed out ...it wont impinge on constitutional rights (1st Amend), BUT workplace/work related speech may and does have employment consequences. Heck anyone suing/defending an employment case will note it is likely the words/speech of both employee, and employer that is very the source of many an incident or termination. Try ragging on a fellow employee on your facebook page and see how your boss reacts. Speech is free...but not without consequence.

Unburdened, now,  by prior employer restraints, McAdams should feel freed and liberated to say/post anything he wishes. An employment suit never provides personal vindication...at most just a few bucks. MU has moved on ...McAdams should, also...but he wont...prolonging the fight is his ongoing fame (speaker's $$, etc).  In todays climate of daily bombast, it would be nice if he appreciated that he is yesterday's news, in this area.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The fact that Marquette still employs administrators who affirmatively obstruct student organization's free expression makes it difficult to accept that the university is committed to being an open marketplace of diverse viewpoints:

https://marquettewire.org/3964581/news/member-of-marquette-faculty-attempts-to-block-ben-shapiro-event/

Edit: Also, Marquette never fired Bartlow.  My suspicion is that she may have been given incentives to resign.

Sigh. The "administrator" as you put it, in the Ben Shapiro situation was a STUDENT worker. She was protesting the event as a student which was well within her first amendment rights. Calling her an administrator is like calling the cashier at piggly wiggly "management."

I hadn't actually seen the marquette wire version of the story. The fact that an on campus news source called a student worker a member of the faculty is really poor journalism. Even if she wasn't a student she would have been a member of the staff, not faculty.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

You have gone well beyond making legal arguments and are just going back to the same old arguments that McAdams made and were rejected by the Marquette faculty, the president and now the courts.  Not really interested in rehashing that.

You realize that is the legal argument, and Marquette made it so.  Their defense is that they're justified in terminating McAdams, despite his tenure and contractual promise of free expression, because he violated the university's standards of professional conduct.  Therefore, they have to show that linking to a graduate student's blog is so beyond the pale that it warrants termination.  In any objective world, that defense, if even cognizable, creates a question of fact for a jury.   

[GGGG]

You realize that is the legal argument, and Marquette made it so.  Their defense is that they're justified in terminating McAdams, despite his tenure and contractual promise of free expression, because he violated the university's standards of professional conduct.  Therefore, they have to show that linking to a graduate student's blog is so beyond the pale that it warrants termination.  In any objective world, that defense, if even cognizable, creates a question of fact for a jury.   

Then say that.  Don't post made up quotes like "Abate was a delicate flower that needed protection" and expect people to take your arguments seriously.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I am an attorney ( would never bring up my also high rankings and law review....ungentlemanly, EG....I see they egged you tho), ...

....but I learned all I know by staying at a Holiday Inn last night.

I think you just did, and, unlike me, no one asked directly. 

[Pakuni]

He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one.  And with respect to Bartlow, it is relevant whether she was terminated for cause or encouraged to leave with a severance package.

Well, for all we know McAdams also was afforded the opportunity to leave with a severance package.
But he doesn't come off as the type of guy who would miss any opportunity to pick a public fight. He seems more the type to build a cross, nail himself to it and then declare himself a martyr.

[wadesworld]

This has been an interesting thread.

I read the opinion.

I am an attorney ( would never bring up my also high rankings and law review....ungentlemanly, EG....I see they egged you tho), ...

....but I learned all I know by staying at a Holiday Inn last night.

Many tenets of McAdams claims merited a MSJ blowout. All of the tort theories were not worth raising. The Contract, Review board, process, etc are internal and regularly given broad deference, especially as here it seemed to have lots of fair due process.

I will agree with EG that ....the only  path of any real interest/discussion by courts is the free speech point. Even as MUFaculty handbook pointed out ...it wont impinge on constitutional rights (1st Amend), BUT workplace/work related speech may and does have employment consequences. Heck anyone suing/defending an employment case will note it is likely the words/speech of both employee, and employer that is very the source of many an incident or termination. Try ragging on a fellow employee on your facebook page and see how your boss reacts. Speech is free...but not without consequence.

Unburdened, now,  by prior employer restraints, McAdams should feel freed and liberated to say/post anything he wishes. An employment suit never provides personal vindication...at most just a few bucks. MU has moved on ...McAdams should, also...but he wont...prolonging the fight is his ongoing fame (speaker's $$, etc).  In todays climate of daily bombast, it would be nice if he appreciated that he is yesterday's news, in this area.

Well put.

[jsglow]

nm

[mayfairskatingrink]

You realize that is the legal argument, and Marquette made it so.  Their defense is that they're justified in terminating McAdams, despite his tenure and contractual promise of free expression, because he violated the university's standards of professional conduct.  Therefore, they have to show that linking to a graduate student's blog is so beyond the pale that it warrants termination.  In any objective world, that defense, if even cognizable, creates a question of fact for a jury.   

From what I've heard from VERY reliable sources , a number of the WI Supreme Court justices are very skeptical of the reasoning Hansher uses, especially the thought that a professor could be held responsible for how someone reacts to what he/she writes or says.

The only question now is whether the appeals court takes the case or passes it on directly to the WI Supreme Court, which is where it's ultimately headed.

And let's be real about all of this.  Essenberg and McAdams knew MU would win this round when uber-liberal Hansher got the case, and MU knew they would win.  That's just the reality of the situation.  Just like when the 9th Circuit takes up the Trump EO's, you know they will overturn them.  Just like when a lefty judge in Madison hears a case involving Act 10, for example, you know they will side against Gov Walker.  Judges are political and rule as such.

But McAdams also knows that the WI Supreme Ct is very, very, very likely to side with him.  It is in MU's interest to have this drag out well into next year, since Mike Gableman will be up for re-election next April and they have a chance to get another liberal on the court to go along with Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley, who will be in MU's corner.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

From what I've heard from VERY reliable sources , a number of the WI Supreme Court justices are very skeptical of the reasoning Hansher uses, especially the thought that a professor could be held responsible for how someone reacts to what he/she writes or says.

So over cocktails or at the water cooler the WI supreme court has pre-judged a case and is speaking to others about it. 

If true I would be more disappointed with the system than this case.

[tower912]

From what I've heard from VERY reliable sources , a number of the WI Supreme Court justices are very skeptical of the reasoning Hansher uses, especially the thought that a professor could be held responsible for how someone reacts to what he/she writes or says.

The only question now is whether the appeals court takes the case or passes it on directly to the WI Supreme Court, which is where it's ultimately headed.

And let's be real about all of this.  Essenberg and McAdams knew MU would win this round when uber-liberal Hansher got the case, and MU knew they would win.  That's just the reality of the situation.  Just like when the 9th Circuit takes up the Trump EO's, you know they will overturn them.  Just like when a lefty judge in Madison hears a case involving Act 10, for example, you know they will side against Gov Walker.  Judges are political and rule as such.

But McAdams also knows that the WI Supreme Ct is very, very, very likely to side with him.  It is in MU's interest to have this drag out well into next year, since Mike Gableman will be up for re-election next April and they have a chance to get another liberal on the court to go along with Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley, who will be in MU's corner.

If justices are letting their opinions be known in advance about cases that may or may not make it to them, they should be removed. 

[Hards Alumni]

If justices are letting their opinions be known in advance about cases that may or may not make it to them, they should be removed.

removed?  disbarred.

[tower912]

Your choice of words is better. 

[GGGG]

The justices are doing no such thing and Mayfair is just doing his usual crap.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Let's see if this gets shifted to Federal Court via EEOC.

[mayfairskatingrink]

The justices are doing no such thing and Mayfair is just doing his usual crap.

You're in for a rude awakening.

And if people really don't think judges/justices don't talk about cases, you are extremely naive.

[GGGG]

You're in for a rude awakening.

No I'm not.  I have acknowledged repeatedly that McAdams could win.

I just know you don't know what you are talking about.