ENDRESS V. BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
364 A.2d 1080 (1976)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Brookdale (D) appealed the judgment in Endress' (P), a college
professor, favor, because they claim their termination of her was covered by official
immunity.
FACTS: P had been advisor to the school newspaper, which was also utilized as a training
program for journalism students, from the time she came to work for the college in September
1971. It appears that in August 1973, as the result of rumors circulating about the campus
concerning several contracts awarded by the college, including the one involving Corderman's
nephew, P and her assistant thought that an investigation of the matter would be good
experience for the students. Accordingly, the project was undertaken in consultation with
the editorial staff. Several students were assigned to the investigation and articles on the
subject were published. There was controversy whether P or the students were responsible for
the content and editorial functions. P was discharged from her employment and her contract
for the next academic year was rescinded by resolution adopted by the college board of
trustees upon the recommendation of the president. This was the result of an editorial
written by her which appeared in the April 26, 1974 edition of The Stall, the student
newspaper of which she was the faculty advisor. The article accused the chairman of the
board of trustees of a conflict of interest in allegedly making 'a deal' whereby his
nephew's company received a contract from the college for the furnishing of audio-visual
equipment. Ds claimed that she was dismissed for publishing without approval and causing the
publication of 'libelous matter contrary to accepted journalistic standards.' P sued the
college and a number of individuals claiming that she was discharged solely by reason of her
exercise of her constitutional right of 'freedom of the press, association and speech.' P
produced as an expert witness a professor emeritus of journalism at Northwestern University
in Illinois. He opined that the writing of the editorial was a valid exercise of First
Amendment rights and that there was nothing unprofessional in plaintiff's conduct. It was
immaterial who wrote these articles and editorials, he said, so long as the editor 'had the
handling of them.' D's expert, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, was of the
view that P's actions, even if approved by the editorial staff, were not consistent with her
functions and duties as a faculty advisor to the newspaper, and constituted a 'serious
breach of professional ethics.' The trial judge found that the student editors had approved
the use of the article and editorial and that neither P nor her assistant had ordered their
publication. The trial judge found that the 'Ds have failed to establish that the editorial
was written with malice or with reckless disregard to its truth.' Cf. Pickering v. Board of
Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968). P got the verdict for
$14,121.00 in back pay, all pension or retirement contributions, next year's salary,
$10,000.00 compensatory damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages against 7 defendants for a
total of $70,000.00. P also got $10,000 in attorney fees. Ds appealed on a large number of
grounds.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment