## Facts

- Michael S. Adams was hired by the University of North Carolina–Wilmington (UNCW) in 1993, received positive teaching evaluations and awards, and was promoted to tenured associate professor in 1998.
- In 2000, Adams converted to Christianity and became a public conservative commentator, writing opinion columns, making media appearances, and authoring a book addressing political and social issues.
- In 2004, Adams applied for promotion to full professor, a self-initiated process evaluated primarily on teaching, research, and service, with emphasis on scholarly publication.
- Adams’s promotion dossier included peer-reviewed academic materials and also his columns, book, and media commentary as evidence of professional activity.
- Senior faculty and the department chair discussed how to assess Adams’s nontraditional writings, which were not peer-reviewed criminology scholarship.
- The department voted and recommended against promotion, citing insufficient scholarly research productivity and service for full professor, while acknowledging adequate teaching.
- Adams asserted the promotion denial resulted from hostility to his religious beliefs and conservative viewpoints and amounted to retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
- After receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter, Adams sued UNCW’s trustees and university officials; the district court entered summary judgment for defendants on remaining claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Adams’s columns, book, and public commentary were unprotected employee speech “pursuant to official duties” under *Garcetti*, or protected speech as a citizen on matters of public concern.
2. Whether Adams produced sufficient evidence to proceed on First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint-discrimination claims based on the promotion denial.
3. Whether Adams produced sufficient evidence of religious discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause in the promotion decision.
4. Whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the constitutional claims at summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- It reversed summary judgment on Adams’s First Amendment claims tied to the promotion denial, allowing those claims to proceed.
- It held *Garcetti* did not bar the First Amendment claims because Adams’s public commentary was not made pursuant to official university duties.
- It affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the Title VII religious-discrimination claim and related equal-protection theory.
- It declined to grant qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage where factual disputes existed concerning defendants’ motivations.

## Legal Principles

- Under public-employee First Amendment doctrine, courts examine whether the plaintiff spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern; if so, they balance speech interests against institutional interests and assess whether the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.
- *Garcetti*’s “official duties” limitation does not automatically apply to faculty speech merely because the speaker is a professor; where speech is not assigned, directed, or required by the job, it may qualify as citizen speech.
- Public, extramural commentary on political and social issues generally constitutes speech on matters of public concern.
- A plaintiff may defeat summary judgment on retaliation/viewpoint discrimination by producing evidence from which a reasonable jury could find protected speech motivated the adverse action, even if the employer offers a performance-based justification.
- Title VII and equal-protection religious-discrimination claims require evidence of intentional discrimination because of religion; disagreement with viewpoints or disputes about scholarly merit do not, without more, establish religious animus.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that a public university could not obtain summary judgment by treating a professor’s public columns and book as unprotected “official duties” speech, and it allowed Adams’s First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint-discrimination claims arising from a denied promotion to proceed, while affirming judgment for defendants on religious-discrimination theories.


Adams v. Trs. of the Univ. of N.C.-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2011)