ENDRESS V. BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 364 A.2d 1080 (1976) CASE BRIEF

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 P was discharged from her employment and her contract for the next academic year was rescinded by resolution adopted by the college board of trustees upon the recommendation of the president.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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner