## Facts

- Patricia H. Endress was an Assistant Professor of Journalism at Brookdale Community College, a public community college in New Jersey.
- In connection with the student newspaper, Endress wrote or approved an editorial criticizing the chair of the college board of trustees for an alleged conflict of interest in college affairs.
- The college president recommended Endress’s dismissal.
- The board of trustees adopted a resolution rescinding Endress’s contract for the next academic year and terminating her employment.
- The college asserted that Endress violated board policy and journalistic standards and that the editorial was inaccurate and unprofessional.
- Endress and the faculty association sued, alleging wrongful discharge and violations of federal constitutional rights, including retaliation for protected speech.
- After trial, the Chancery Division ordered reinstatement, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and counsel fees and costs, and imposed liability on certain individual officials and trustees.
- The college, its officers, and trustees appealed, challenging liability and remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether terminating a public college faculty member because of an editorial criticizing college governance violates the First Amendment.
2. Whether the editorial was a substantial or motivating factor in the termination, and whether the college’s stated reasons were pretextual.
3. Whether individual administrators and trustees were shielded from personal liability by qualified immunity.
4. Whether the trial court properly granted reinstatement and back pay, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and awarded attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division held that Endress’s termination violated the First Amendment because it was primarily motivated by her protected speech on a matter of public concern.
- The court affirmed reinstatement (specific performance) and back pay as appropriate relief for unconstitutional termination.
- The court reduced the compensatory and punitive damages as excessive relative to the evidentiary support.
- The court disallowed attorney’s fees because no statute, contract, court rule, or applicable exception authorized the fee award.
- The court rejected qualified immunity for individual defendants, concluding they should have reasonably known their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights.

## Legal Principles

- A public college is a state actor; its employment decisions are subject to First and Fourteenth Amendment constraints.
- A public employee may not be discharged in retaliation for protected speech addressing matters of public concern; asserted policy-based justifications will not sustain termination if shown to be pretext.
- In First Amendment retaliation claims, the plaintiff must show protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor; the employer avoids liability only by proving it would have taken the same action absent the speech.
- Qualified immunity does not protect officials who reasonably should have known their actions would violate clearly established constitutional rights.
- Reinstatement and back pay are proper remedies for unconstitutional termination; compensatory and punitive damages require evidentiary support and proportionality.
- Attorney’s fees are generally unavailable absent statutory, contractual, rule-based authorization, or a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division concluded that a public community college unlawfully terminated a journalism professor in retaliation for an editorial criticizing college governance, affirmed reinstatement and back pay, limited damages to amounts supported by the record, and vacated counsel-fee awards for lack of legal authorization while permitting personal liability where officials should have known the conduct was unconstitutional.


Endress v. Brookdale Cmty. Coll., 144 N.J. Super. 109, 364 A.2d 1080 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)