## Facts

- Juan Hong was a professor in a biomedical engineering program at a public university.
- His faculty role included participation in internal governance, including peer review and evaluation of hiring, promotion, and related personnel matters.
- Hong made internal statements criticizing departmental and university decisions, including:
  - dissenting letters in peer-review processes;
  - objections to hiring and promotion decisions and the timing/approval of offers; and
  - criticism of using lecturers rather than tenure-track or tenured faculty for certain courses.
- Hong applied for a merit-based salary increase; his materials reflected limited grant funding and limited peer-reviewed publication activity.
- The university denied the merit increase, citing inadequate research performance for advancement.
- Hong sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the denial was retaliation for his critical speech in violation of the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a public university professor’s internal criticisms about hiring, promotion, and staffing, made during peer review and faculty governance, are protected speech under the First Amendment.
2. Whether such speech is unprotected because it was made pursuant to the professor’s official duties as a public employee.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the Regents and the individual university administrators.
- The court held Hong’s statements were not protected by the First Amendment because they were made pursuant to his official duties as a faculty member within peer-review and governance processes.
- The court also treated the speech as focused on internal departmental disputes, which further weighed against constitutional protection in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Under Garcetti v. Ceballos, a public employee’s speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline or retaliation.
- Determining whether speech is protected turns on whether the employee spoke as a citizen or as an employee performing assigned responsibilities.
- A university may regulate statements made as part of internal peer review and faculty governance when those activities are part of the faculty member’s job responsibilities.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the professor’s First Amendment retaliation claim because his criticisms about departmental governance and staffing arose from duties the university assigned to him as a faculty member; as employee speech under Garcetti, it was not constitutionally protected, warranting summary judgment for the defendants.


Hong v. Grant, 516 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2007)