Update from St. Thomas University School of Law

Two weeks ago, we reported on an attempt to dismiss a tenured law professor in a manner that did not accord with the procedural rights created by the university’s faculty handbook.  She sued for wrongful termination.

Last Thursday, Julianne Hill, writing for the ABA Journal reported that St. Thomas University has now reinstated Professor Lauren Gilbert but also has initiated termination proceedings against her.  In its reinstatement letter, the University reiterated its view that Professor Gilbert’s acts of “insubordination” justified termination, and it added a new, unspecified charge of an “inappropriate relationship” with a student.  In response, Professor Gilbert’s attorney has promised to add a defamation claim to her suit against the university.

The University seems to have handled this episode with unique incompetence. The original termination letter cited a university handbook for staff that it claimed governed its relationship with Professor Gilbert in relevant part. Its decision to reinstate her and to follow the procedures set forth in the faculty handbook suggests a total abandonment of that position, which ought to be a matter of considerable embarrassment to university counsel or outside counsel or both. 

The charges added to the reinstatement letter are extraordinarily odd.  Her termination letter cited Professor Gilbert’s failure to attend graduation (with notice but without permission) as another “act of insubordination by you.”  If the University was going to cite petty offenses, it might have mentioned conduct that, standing alone, would justify for-cause termination.  If, as Professor Gilbert contends, there is no basis for the allegation, the University has, at the very least, created another legal issue that will increase its costs or perhaps increase what it will have to pay to settle the matter.  

Meanwhile, because Professor Gilbert has been reinstated, she will continue to draw her salary and benefits.  However, because of the University’s rather outré claim that she constitutes a threat to endanger the community and/or students, she cannot teach or even set foot on campus.  Assuming that the grounds in the original termination letter were the best justifications that the University could concoct for the summary dismissal of a tenured professor, Professor Gilbert deserves a better academic home.  But because the University has now conceded that she is entitled to full salary and benefits until the appropriate termination process is completed, she has some time to find one.