## Facts

- Ward Churchill, a tenured professor at a public university, wrote a post–September 11 essay that drew intense public and political backlash, including calls for his dismissal.
- The university’s governing board directed an investigation; an initial review concluded the essay itself was protected speech and not grounds for dismissal.
- Allegations then surfaced that Churchill committed research and academic misconduct in his scholarship (including plagiarism, fabrication, and improper citation).
- The university conducted a formal academic-misconduct process with layered review and trial-like hearings, including counsel, presentation of evidence and witnesses, and cross-examination.
- The governing board terminated Churchill’s tenured appointment based on findings of academic misconduct.
- Churchill sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment.
- A jury found Churchill’s protected speech was a motivating factor in the termination decision and awarded $1 in nominal damages; Churchill sought reinstatement and front pay as equitable relief.
- Post-trial, the court vacated the verdict on immunity grounds, denied equitable relief, and rejected a separate claim that the investigation itself was conducted in bad faith as retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether the governing board’s decision to terminate a tenured professor after an adversarial hearing was a quasi-judicial act entitling board members to absolute immunity from § 1983 damages.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying reinstatement and front pay after the jury’s finding of First Amendment retaliation.
3. Whether officials were protected by qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim that initiating and conducting the academic-misconduct investigation was retaliatory.

## Decision

- The state supreme court affirmed the judgment for the university officials.
- The court held the governing board’s termination decision was quasi-judicial and therefore protected by absolute immunity from § 1983 damages, supporting vacatur of the nominal-damages verdict.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying reinstatement and front pay based on the equities and circumstances of the employment relationship.
- The court held qualified immunity barred the “bad-faith investigation” claim because no clearly established law made the investigation unconstitutional under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute immunity applies to officials performing functions comparable to a judicial process; the inquiry turns on the function performed, not the actor’s identity.
- A termination decision following trial-like procedures (notice, evidentiary record, hearings, counsel, and cross-examination) can constitute quasi-judicial action for immunity purposes.
- Absolute immunity forecloses damages liability under § 1983 for acts within a quasi-judicial role, even where a jury finds retaliatory motive.
- Equitable remedies such as reinstatement and front pay are discretionary and may be denied when the equities, institutional interests, or the employment relationship make such relief inappropriate.
- Qualified immunity bars § 1983 claims unless the challenged conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional law at the time of the conduct.

## Conclusion

The court upheld immunity protections for university decisionmakers by treating the board’s trial-like tenure-termination process as quasi-judicial, eliminating damages liability, while also affirming discretionary denial of reinstatement/front pay and rejecting a retaliatory-investigation theory under qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.


Churchill v. Univ. of Colo. at Boulder, 285 P.3d 986 (Colo. 2012)