## Facts

- Edward D. Jervey was a professor at Radford College, a Virginia state institution.
- The college president, Charles K. Martin, Jr., initially recommended that Jervey’s salary for the 1968–69 academic year increase from $11,500 to $12,700.
- Jervey wrote a letter to the editor of *Redbook* praising an article on premarital sex and stating he intended to use some remarks in his teaching; the letter was published.
- Jervey alleged that after the president and Board of Visitors learned of the letter, the president withdrew his raise recommendation and the Board denied the raise as retaliation for protected speech.
- Jervey also alleged he was denied other work opportunities and benefits (including summer teaching and related professional opportunities) because of the letter.
- Jervey sued the president and Board members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting First Amendment retaliation; he also pleaded defamation claims and attempted to proceed as a class action.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a § 1983 claim that state college officials retaliated against a professor for protected speech by denying a salary increase and other opportunities.
2. Whether asserted discretion over salary decisions and Eleventh Amendment/common-law “discretionary immunity” required dismissal at the pleading stage.
3. Whether the pleaded libel and slander allegations stated a claim cognizable under § 1983.
4. Whether the complaint satisfied Rule 23 requirements to proceed as a class action.
5. Whether the Commonwealth of Virginia was an indispensable party whose absence required dismissal.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss as to the First Amendment retaliation claim, holding the allegations stated a claim for relief under § 1983.
- The court rejected dismissal based on defendants’ claimed salary-setting discretion and immunity defenses at the pleading stage where unconstitutional retaliation was alleged.
- The court dismissed the libel and slander claims for failure to state a federal civil-rights claim.
- The court dismissed the class-action allegations for failure to satisfy Rule 23.
- The court held the Commonwealth of Virginia was not an indispensable party and denied dismissal on that basis.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the truth of well-pleaded factual allegations and dismisses only if no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief.
- State officials’ discretion in setting public-college salaries does not extend to actions that punish or deter constitutionally protected speech.
- A public employee’s allegation that adverse employment action was taken as a reprisal for protected expression can state a First Amendment claim under § 1983 sufficient to proceed past the pleading stage.
- Defamation alone (libel/slander), without an additional federal rights deprivation, is not actionable under § 1983.
- Class-action treatment requires satisfaction of Rule 23; individualized employment disputes may fail commonality/typicality.
- In a § 1983 suit against state officials for alleged unconstitutional conduct, the state itself need not be joined as an indispensable party when effective relief can be granted without it.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the professor’s individual § 1983 claim alleging denial of a raise in retaliation for protected speech to proceed, while dismissing defamation and class-action components and rejecting immunity and indispensable-party arguments as grounds for dismissal at the pleading stage.


Jervey v. Martin, 336 F. Supp. 1350 (W.D. Va. 1972)