7th Circuit Revives First Amendment Retaliation Claim of Law Professor
March 13, 2025, 2:14 pm CDT
A significant legal ruling emerged from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 12, 2025, as it revived a First Amendment retaliation case brought by University of Illinois Chicago School of Law professor Jason Kilborn. The case stemmed from Kilborn’s use of a modified racial slur in an exam question and the subsequent actions taken by the university.
Background of the Case
In December 2020, Kilborn included a hypothetical scenario in a civil procedure exam, where a fictional plaintiff alleged that she had been referred to using racial slurs by her supervisors. The exam question utilized the first letter of the racial epithet followed by blank lines. This choice led to substantial controversy, prompting complaints from students and an investigation by the university.
Investigations and Consequences
The university’s investigation concluded that Kilborn’s actions violated its harassment policies. This decision resulted in a required suspension, denial of a pay raise, and mandatory diversity training before he could return to teaching. During this examination process, faculty also examined previous comments he made during class that were deemed racially insensitive.
Legal Proceedings
Initially, Kilborn’s federal lawsuit, filed in 2022, was dismissed in December 2023, but the 7th Circuit found that he had alleged retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, thereby reversing the dismissal.
Court’s Findings
The appellate court highlighted the protections that the First Amendment affords to academic speech. Judge Thomas Lee Kirsch II, appointed by former President Donald Trump, noted that Kilborn’s exam question and related classroom discussions raised important societal issues, which warrant constitutional protection.
“We conclude that Kilborn has plausibly alleged that his speech is constitutionally protected and reverse the dismissal of his claim,” stated the court.
Contentious Remarks Under Scrutiny
In addition to the exam question, the university scrutinized remarks such as comparing defendants in frivolous cases to “cockroaches” fleeing when losses occur, and referencing a “public lynching” in the context of litigation. Another notable incident involved Kilborn using an African American Vernacular English accent to recite the lyrics of a Jay-Z song about racial profiling.
Looking Ahead
The ruling not only reinstates Kilborn’s retaliation claims but also calls into question the previous dismissal of state law claims, directing further examination. The appeals court’s decision underscores the ongoing debate surrounding academic freedom, free speech, and the responsibilities of educational institutions in handling such sensitive matters.
The legal landscape for academic speech remains complex and contentious, with this case setting a precedent for future considerations in similar circumstances.
