Introduction

The case of Bradley M. Peterson, Ph.D. v. Kristina M. Johnson, Ph.D., et al. (87 F.4th 833) addresses critical questions regarding procedural due process rights in the context of revoking emeritus status at a prominent academic institution. Bradley Peterson, an emeritus professor at Ohio State University, alleges that his procedural due process rights were violated when Ohio State revoked his emeritus status following an investigation into sexual harassment allegations. The defendants include Kristina M. Johnson, Bruce A. McPheron, and Melissa L. Gilliam, representing their official and individual capacities. This comprehensive commentary explores the appellate court's decision to uphold the district court's dismissal of Peterson's claims, examining the legal principles and precedents that shaped the outcome.

Summary of the Judgment

In December 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bradley Peterson's lawsuit against Ohio State University officials. Peterson claimed that his emeritus status, which he argued was a protected property interest, was unjustly revoked without adequate procedural due process. The district court had previously dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), determining that emeritus status did not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest and that there was no meaningful change to Peterson's employment relationship with Ohio State. The appellate court agreed, emphasizing that Peterson failed to adequately demonstrate that his emeritus status was backed by state law or conferred specific tangible benefits by the university that would warrant procedural protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents that establish the boundaries of procedural due process in employment contexts. Notably:

• Roth v. Bd. of Regents of State Colls. (408 U.S. 564, 1972) - Established that property interests are not created by the Constitution but by state law, contracts, or mutual understandings.
• PERRY v. SINDERMANN (408 U.S. 593, 1972) - Clarified that property interests can arise from implied contracts and mutual understandings.
• Crosby v. Univ. of Ky. (863 F.3d 545, 2017) - Determined that adverse employment decisions short of termination do not automatically invoke procedural due process protections.
• Med Corp. v. City of Lima (296 F.3d 404, 2002) - Outlined the elements required to establish a procedural due process claim.
• JACKSON v. CITY OF COLUMBUS (194 F.3d 737, 1999) - Highlighted that loss of pay or benefits is typically necessary to demonstrate a protected property interest.
• QUINN v. SHIREY (293 F.3d 315, 2002) - Emphasized the necessity of requesting a name-clearing hearing when claiming reputational harm as a liberty interest.

These cases collectively underscore that procedural due process protections are closely tied to clearly defined property interests, often necessitating tangible benefits or formal agreements that secure an individual's status within an institution.

Legal Reasoning

The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the district court's decision, adhering strictly to the standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal, which require that a plaintiff's allegations must be plausible on their face to survive a motion to dismiss. Peterson's claim centered on the assertion that emeritus status constituted a protected property interest. However, the court found this assertion unsubstantiated due to the following reasons:

• Lack of Explicit Property Interest: Peterson failed to demonstrate that his emeritus status was backed by state law, contracts, or specific university policies that would confer a tangible property interest.
• No Tangible Benefits Alleged: Although Peterson claimed loss of pay and professional opportunities, he did not specify that these benefits were directly tied to his emeritus status in a manner recognized by Ohio State's policies.
• Reputational Harm Insufficient: The court distinguished between property interests and liberty interests, noting that reputational harm alone does not satisfy the requirements unless accompanied by procedural safeguards such as a name-clearing hearing, which Peterson did not request.

Consequently, the court concluded that Peterson did not meet the burden of establishing a constitutionally protected property interest in his emeritus status, rendering his procedural due process claim untenable.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that not all titles or statuses within academic institutions are automatically protected under procedural due process. Specifically, without explicit recognition through state law or institutional policies that confer tangible benefits, statuses like emeritus professorship may not warrant constitutional protections against revocation. The decision sets a precedent that emphasizes the necessity for plaintiffs to meticulously establish the existence of protected property interests by detailing the legal or contractual foundations that confer such status. Future cases involving claims of lost status or honorific titles will likely hinge on whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that these roles are underpinned by enforceable rights or benefits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process refers to the legal requirement that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property. In employment contexts, this often pertains to the processes involved in disciplining or terminating an employee.

Property Interest

A property interest, in constitutional law, is an interest in some subject matter that the government is obligated not to take away without following due process. This can arise from explicit contracts, state laws, or implied agreements.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

This rule allows a defendant to request the court to dismiss a lawsuit before it proceeds to discovery, arguing that even if all the allegations are true, the law does not provide a remedy for the plaintiff’s claims.

De Novo Review

De novo review is a standard of judicial review where the appellate court considers the matter anew, giving no deference to the lower court’s conclusions.

Conclusion

The appellate affirmation in Peterson v. Johnson et al. underscores the stringent requirements plaintiffs must meet to establish procedural due process claims concerning non-traditional employment statuses like emeritus professorships. The court's decision highlights the necessity for clear legal or contractual foundations when asserting that a status constitutes a protected property interest. As academic institutions continue to evolve their employment structures, this case serves as a critical reference point for both employees seeking to challenge adverse decisions and institutions aiming to understand the limits of their procedural obligations. Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the importance of precise and substantiated claims in due process litigation, ensuring that constitutional protections are reserved for scenarios with well-defined legal underpinnings.