Judge dismisses all of McAdams claims against Marquette

[real chili 83]

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

This isn't an EEOC matter. It's contract law

[warriorchick]

This isn't an EEOC matter. It's contract law

And I think it would a little tough for him to prove some sort of protected class discrimination.  The only thing he has going for him in that regard is age, and it's not like he is the only old white guy that works for the university.  On top of that, I don't believe he has raised that claim before, and wouldn't it be a little late in the game to do that now?

[Archies Bat]

And I think it would a little tough for him to prove some sort of protected class discrimination.  The only thing he has going for him in that regard is age, and it's not like he is the only old white guy that works for the university.  On top of that, I don't believe he has raised that claim before, and wouldn't it be a little late in the game to do that now?

An EEOC complaint generally needs to be filed to the EEOC within 180 days, and can be extended to 300 days under certain circumstances.  If the EEOC decides not to act on a complaint, they typically issue a right to sue notice, which means the EEOC sees no basis for the complaint, but the employee can sue anyway.  I'm not sure if someone has the right to sue if they fail to file with the EEOC.

[Dr. Blackheart]

This isn't an EEOC matter. It's contract law

I could be wrong, and this situation is confusing, but I thought EEOC complaints were lodged against him? Obviously, this specific case is McAdam's so sorry to muddle the thread.

[LloydsLegs]

As a non WI lawyer, I am surprised by the certainty with which some posters are positing that the WI S Ct will take the case. In most jurisdictions, there is a right to a first level of appeal for most cases, including those for breach of contract.  The next level requires acceptance by the S Ct of a Petition. Those Petitiins are very rarely granted, especially in civil cases, and in most instances involve a division among circuits, a state constitutional issue, or an interpretation of a statute. Is WI different in this regard?

[forgetful]

As a non WI lawyer, I am surprised by the certainty with which some posters are positing that the WI S Ct will take the case. In most jurisdictions, there is a right to a first level of appeal for most cases, including those for breach of contract.  The next level requires acceptance by the S Ct of a Petition. Those Petitiins are very rarely granted, especially in civil cases, and in most instances involve a division among circuits, a state constitutional issue, or an interpretation of a statute. Is WI different in this regard?

I was wondering the same thing.  I see very little reason for why the S Ct would even here this case, but do not know the ins and outs of the WI legal system.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

As a non WI lawyer, I am surprised by the certainty with which some posters are positing that the WI S Ct will take the case. In most jurisdictions, there is a right to a first level of appeal for most cases, including those for breach of contract.  The next level requires acceptance by the S Ct of a Petition. Those Petitiins are very rarely granted, especially in civil cases, and in most instances involve a division among circuits, a state constitutional issue, or an interpretation of a statute. Is WI different in this regard?

The rule in Wisconsin is similar to that you describe.  But you only need three votes to accept a petition.  McAdams certainly has that in Gabbleman, Kelly, and R. Bradley.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Interesting that George Will decided to pick up this story in the Washington Post while McAdams' petition is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/academic-freedom-goes-on-trial/2017/12/29/81cb9268-ebf6-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.b3dfcc4c0061.

[reinko]

Interesting that George Will decided to pick up this story in the Washington Post while McAdams' petition is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/academic-freedom-goes-on-trial/2017/12/29/81cb9268-ebf6-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.b3dfcc4c0061.

Bwahha ha ha ha

[cheebs09]

Interesting that George Will decided to pick up this story in the Washington Post while McAdams' petition is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/academic-freedom-goes-on-trial/2017/12/29/81cb9268-ebf6-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.b3dfcc4c0061.

That picture with the article will do wonders for recruiting.

[warriorchick]

That picture with the article will do wonders for recruiting.

Because most recruits read the Washington Post?

[jsglow]

George Will is typically a well reasoned, serious analyst.  I don't always agree with him but recognize his serious examination of the issues at hand.  This particular editorial piece is sloppy to a level usually reserved for 'bomb throwers' who have nothing to contribute except to reinforce some predetermined agenda.  Mark me down as disappointed.

[WarriorDad]

George Will is typically a well reasoned, serious analyst.  I don't always agree with him but recognize his serious examination of the issues at hand.  This particular editorial piece is sloppy to a level usually reserved for 'bomb throwers' who have nothing to contribute except to reinforce some predetermined agenda.  Mark me down as disappointed.

As a lifelong Democrat, mark me down as perpetually disappointed with George Will. 

[cheebs09]

Because most recruits read the Washington Post?

Sheesh. I guess I'll use teal next time.

[GGGG]

George Will is typically a well reasoned, serious analyst.  I don't always agree with him but recognize his serious examination of the issues at hand.  This particular editorial piece is sloppy to a level usually reserved for 'bomb throwers' who have nothing to contribute except to reinforce some predetermined agenda.  Mark me down as disappointed.

Complete with the mocking of her dissertation topic.

[jsglow]

Complete with the mocking of her dissertation topic.

I know, hey?  Seriously, I accuse some on the left as being nothing but empty bomb throwing boobs.  That's all Will did from the right here.  Not a word of serious examination.  Nothing but talking points.

[jsglow]

As a lifelong Democrat, mark me down as perpetually disappointed with George Will.

Not quite sure how to respond to this other than to say that I saw the McAdams situation as a completely apolitical issue.  Somehow in our culture political opinion or 'taking sides' seems to supercede everything such as the 'rule of law' or written 'employee codes of conduct'.  I reject the notion that truth or employment rules or whatever are ever at the whim of a political majority or those that simply shout the loudest.

Many years ago I had great personal regard for John and considered him a mentor.  Saddened that's no longer true.

[MUBurrow]

On another note, can this please put a nail in the coffin of the tired refrain that liberal judges are "activist" while conservative judges "call balls and strikes"?  Here we have a conservative firebrand academic filing an appeal from a lower court contract claim decision on the basis of:

Because there is almost no Wisconsin case law concerning academic freedom that could have guided the circuit court, McAdams is asking the state supreme court to bypass the appeals court and perform its function as the state's "law-developing court." He is also asking the court to be cognizant of the cultural context: Nationwide, colleges and universities "are under pressure" — all of it from within the institutions — "to enact or implement speech codes or otherwise restrict speech in various ways."

I don't have a problem with McAdams making this argument, and I don't necessarily have a problem with a well-reasoned opinion that comes down on either side. But it highlights that courts of last resort grant petitions for review when there are open questions of law. If McAdams doesn't think taking this case and deciding for him is activist, then I struggle to come up with a useful definition of what "activist" actually is.

Edit to include the last part of Will's article on this:

The wreckage she left in her wake illustrates how rights are imperiled when judicial deference becomes dereliction of judicial duty... Wisconsin's Supreme Court must lay down the law that can stop some of the rot this case illustrates.

To be fair, George Will once wrote an article titled "Judicial activism isn't a bad thing" so he's not necessarily offender #1 on this. But at the point where conservative academics are requesting relief by way of the court's function as "law developing" considering "cultural context" and conservative political commentators are saying judicial activism is a good thing, I think its time we just retire the term altogether.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

As a lifelong Democrat, mark me down as perpetually disappointed with George Will.

George Will hasn't been reasonable in 20 years.
He should stick to baseball.

[warriorchick]

I know, hey?  Seriously, I accuse some on the left as being nothing but empty bomb throwing boobs.  That's all Will did from the right here.  Not a word of serious examination.  Nothing but talking points.

Probably needed to bang out one last article before leaving for a the holidays and took the easiest way out.

[warriorchick]

Sheesh. I guess I'll use teal next time.

You shouldn't need to use teal, but unfortunately, there are posters on Scoop who say stuff like that and actually mean it.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

On another note, can this please put a nail in the coffin of the tired refrain that liberal judges are "activist" while conservative judges "call balls and strikes?"

Not quite sure how an article from a member of the media could establish this, but okay.

[mayfairskatingrink]

Complete with the mocking of her dissertation topic.

Yeah, it was such a serious topic.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah, it was such a serious topic.

I'm sensing sarcasm. Why is animal rights a non-serious topic?

[mayfairskatingrink]

The rule in Wisconsin is similar to that you describe.  But you only need three votes to accept a petition.  McAdams certainly has that in Gabbleman, Kelly, and R. Bradley.

A few updates on what is going on now....

---the court is now reading petitions for review for an Appeals Court bypass, which requires four votes to take the case

--one of the conservative justices is leaning towards recusal.