In November, Chief Bass posted on an official Air Force Facebook ...
]]>In November, Chief Bass posted on an official Air Force Facebook page that “there’s not a day that goes by that I’m not thankful for each of YOU.” Rynearson replied that he was thankful that other branches of the military were concentrating on warfare so that the Air Force could concentrate on making sure “we all feel good about ourselves” and that “nobody is offended or feels like a victim.” He also attached a link to an image of the Care Bears. Within a few hours, he was banned from the Facebook page, and he has not been restored.
CIR filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. We are asking the court to declare that banning Rynearson from the government’s Facebook page violated his right to free speech and to order Chief Bass rescind Rynearson’s ban.
]]>The facts are not in dispute — Oregon proudly admits it limited benefits solely on the basis of race. The state has made broad claims about the difficulties faced by black individuals and businesses as a result of the COVID virus, but hasn’t offered any reason to think ...
]]>The facts are not in dispute — Oregon proudly admits it limited benefits solely on the basis of race. The state has made broad claims about the difficulties faced by black individuals and businesses as a result of the COVID virus, but hasn’t offered any reason to think individuals from other racial groups didn’t suffer the same difficulties.
The court denied CIR’s motion for a preliminary injunction late in 2020 on the grounds that Ms. Garcia did not suffer an irreparable harm when she was denied a grant. In a related case challenging the same fund, two corporate plaintiffs and an individual moved to certify a class action. The state promptly offered to settle with all concerned. In fact, as part of that settlement, the state was forced to pay an additional $3.5 million to provide grants to non-black applicants.
Ms. Garica declined that settlement. Oregon’s governor had already released a statement promising to fund new race-exclusive programs, making clear the need for a definitive legal ruling. She remains determined to see her case through to a successful ruling on the merits. And we are just as determined to achieve that ruling.
We expect to begin discovery shortly. In the meantime, Ms. Garcia is moving forward with plans to restart her business.
]]>As might be expected, the defendants threw everything but the kitchen sink into this effort. For example, the ...
]]>As might be expected, the defendants threw everything but the kitchen sink into this effort. For example, the two major entities — Pitt and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) — relied heavily on the fact that Dr. Wang’s employment contract was with a wholly owned subsidiary of UPMC — a private non-profit corporation.
On the basis of this interlocking structure the University claimed that, while it might be subject to the First Amendment, it didn’t take any of the personnel actions complained about in our case. And, the UPMC argued that, while it did take action against Wang, it is not covered by the First Amendment. It reminded us of a shell game — just when you think you know the shell hiding the pea, you don’t.
The defendants managed to ignore the actual claim in the complaint, which does not allege a shell game at all. Rather, it claims that that the medical school led the charge against Wang from the beginning by working through several individuals who have appointments in the medical school in addition to their UPMC jobs.
Since a motion to dismiss must be decided on the basis of the actual complaint filed by the plaintiff rather than the imaginary version constructed by the defendants, we are confident the case will move forward intact.
]]>Last July, the agencies filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Ultima could not challenge the program’s racial restrictions because it would not qualify as a Section 8(a) contractor even if the racial restrictions were lifted. Judge Corker rejected their argument explaining that Ultima is not trying to be included as a Section 8(a) contractor; rather, Ultima argues that the Section 8(a) Program as a whole violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on racial discrimination in federal law. He concluded that Ultima does have standing to challenge the Section 8(a) Program as a whole.
With the court’s ruling, the case will now move forward into discovery.
]]>
CIR sued the OTDA on behalf of Davi arguing that the agency had punished him purely for the content of his speech. Davi had worked for the OTDA as administrative law judge for five years — hearing appeals from welfare recipients who had been denied benefits. During that time Davi’s supervisors praised his work, noting in particular his “unbiased approach to his job.”
The court ruled in favor of Davi, finding that his comments were “political speech about the proper role of government” and thus “among the most highly protected speech in our constitutional order.” Moreover, the OTDA lacked evidence that Davi’s comments showed any actual bias or were likely to cause a disruption to the offices work, which suggested “[the officers] sought to fire Davi because he held disfavored views.” The court ordered Davi’s superiors to reinstate him as an ALJ.
In a rare decision, the court ruled that several officials face personal liability for their actions against Davi. Ordinarily, state officials are shielded from personal liability for constitutional deprivations by the doctrine of “qualified immunity.” But the doctrine does not apply to actions that show deliberate indifference to clear constitutional violations. In this case, officers ignored their own, thorough investigation, which produced no evidence of wrongdoing, bias, or disruption, by Davi. Yet they attempted to fire him anyway.
]]>
Click here for more information.
]]>
]]>
Pittsburgh, PA December 17, 2020 – The Center for Individual Rights filed a lawsuit on December 15 on behalf of Dr. Norman Wang, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who was removed from his administrative position and teaching duties at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in response to a research paper that he wrote on race-conscious selection policies in the ...
]]>Pittsburgh, PA December 17, 2020 – The Center for Individual Rights filed a lawsuit on December 15 on behalf of Dr. Norman Wang, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who was removed from his administrative position and teaching duties at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in response to a research paper that he wrote on race-conscious selection policies in the medical field.
Wang is an accomplished physician and scholar working in electrophysiology. Since 2008, he has been a faculty member at the Pitt School of Medicine. Beginning in 2017, he served as program director of the Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), a closely affiliated corporation. As a scholar, he has written and contributed to dozens of articles for peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals.
In March, Wang published an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) that analyzed the history and development of the use of racial preferences in medical education. The paper documented a recent push to expand the use of racial preferences in ways that likely violate the Constitution and federal anti-discrimination law. It further argued that the use of racial preferences has not succeeded in producing desired diversity goals for certain racial and ethnic minorities and that preferences often harm the people they are designed to help.
Months went by without any substantive reaction to the article from leaders at Pitt. But in late July and early August, as the article began attracting attention from Pitt faculty and Twitter activists, leadership took disciplinary action against Wang. On July 31, Samir Saba, the Chief of the Cardiology Division in the School of Medicine, met with him to discuss his article and his views on racial preferences. Wang stood by the views he expressed in his paper.
Saba removed Wang from his program director position, explaining in an email to Wang that “the views expressed in [his] paper are incompatible with [his] ability to function in a leadership position within [the Heart and Vascular Institute].” Wang was later prohibited from having contacts with any Pitt medical students, residents, or fellows. He was told that his beliefs make any educational environment in which he participates “inherently unsafe.”
Faculty and administrators began to publicly attack Wang’s scholarship, accusing him of being racist and of academic dishonesty. Administrators sent a series of emails to the University of Pittsburgh community condemning Wang’s article. The school’s Dean of Medicine, Anantha Shekhar, described the article as “against equity and inclusivity.” The Chairman of the Department of Medicine, Mark Gladwin, wrote to faculty that Wang’s article was “antithetical to [Pitt’s] values.”
Around the same time, Wang’s article was targeted for censorship by social media activists, including Pitt faculty. Users called upon the JAHA to remove Wang’s article under the hashtags #RetractRacists and #MedRacism. These hashtags have been used by activists to target academic journals that publish content perceived to be inconsistent with what is sometimes called “woke” sensibilities with the aim of having the articles retracted.
Currently unidentified faculty at University of Pittsburgh and the UPMC also contacted the JAHA and demanded that the journal retract Wang’s article. The authors raised unsupported allegations that Wang’s article contained “misconceptions and misquotes.” The JAHA promptly withdrew the article and committed to publishing a detailed rebuttal in its place. It subsequently published an editorial by University of Pittsburgh colleague, Marc Simon, that accused Wang of misrepresenting sources.
CIR has brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, challenging the employment actions taken against Wang under the First Amendment. The University of Pittsburgh is a public institution and may not take adverse employment actions against professors merely for the political views that they express.
CIR is also suing the university, several administrators, and the American Heart Association for libeling Wang, alleging that his article misquoted and misrepresented sources. These false claims have tarnished Wang’s reputation as a scholar in a large and influential academic community.
]]>In March, Wang published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association, which analyzed the history of racial preferences in medical education. The paper questioned the legality of using race in admission decisions and argued that racial preferences had not been effective in diversifying the medical profession. Administrators at the School of Medicine condemned the paper, pressured the JAHA to retract the article, and disciplined Wang.
CIR filed suit in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The suit asks the court to fully reinstate Wang to his teaching positions. It also seeks damages for defamation from the University of Pittsburgh, the American Heart Association, and several administrators who have attacked Wang’s reputation as a scholar with entirely baseless accusations that he misused his sources.
]]>In July, The Contingent, an Oregon nonprofit that primarily serves black Oregonians, and the Black United Fund requested $62 million from the state to establish The Oregon Cares Fund. The Oregon Cares Fund would ...
]]>In July, The Contingent, an Oregon nonprofit that primarily serves black Oregonians, and the Black United Fund requested $62 million from the state to establish The Oregon Cares Fund. The Oregon Cares Fund would distribute federal grant money exclusively to Black individuals and Black-owned businesses. The state authorized the full amount.
Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the suit asks the court to declare the race-exclusive limit on the relief fund unconstitutional and to consider applications for relief under the fund regardless of race.
]]>The district court maintains that school boards, city councils, and other local elected bodies are mere agents of the state government, ...
]]>The district court maintains that school boards, city councils, and other local elected bodies are mere agents of the state government, and California has the authority dictate or restrict the speech of its agents. Accordingly, the plaintiffs do not have a First Amendment right that is being infringed by Section 3550.
The district court’s decision runs afoul of longstanding First Amendment doctrine and must be reversed. Local elected officials are not bureaucrats appointed by the state to carry out its objectives; they are public representatives who have a responsibility to speak candidly with their constituents. CIR is asking the Ninth Circuit to enforce the strong protections for free speech that courts have consistently afforded to public officials.
]]>