## Facts

- Dr. William E. Korf was a tenured associate professor at Ball State University.
- The dean informed Korf that male students accused him of sexual harassment, including unwelcome advances and offering grades in exchange for sexual involvement.
- Korf denied wrongdoing and refused an invitation to resign; the university began termination proceedings under established procedures.
- An investigative committee found sufficient grounds to proceed; the university president notified Korf of formal charges and his right to a faculty hearing.
- At the hearing, students testified (in person and by statement) that Korf exchanged gifts, money, and grades for sexual acts; Korf admitted sexual relationships with students but claimed they were consensual.
- The hearing committee found Korf committed “unethical conduct” under the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics (adopted in the faculty handbook) by exploiting students for private advantage.
- Although the committee initially recommended probation, the Board of Trustees rejected that outcome and, after reconsideration, discharged Korf.
- Korf sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging constitutional violations including substantive due process and equal protection.

## Issues

1. Whether termination under the AAUP ethics standard violated substantive due process because the standard allegedly did not provide fair notice that Korf’s conduct was grounds for dismissal.
2. Whether the university violated equal protection by selectively enforcing its policies against Korf, including alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper because additional discovery was needed to oppose defendants’ motion.
4. Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity barred some or all relief against the university and individual officials.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants on Korf’s federal claims.
- The court held there was no substantive due process violation because applying the AAUP ethics rule against exploitation of students for private advantage was reasonable and provided adequate notice.
- The court held there was no equal protection violation because Korf produced no evidence of discriminatory intent or different treatment of similarly situated faculty.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in denying further discovery because Korf identified no specific, material facts likely to be obtained through additional discovery.
- The court upheld Eleventh Amendment immunity for the university and officials in their official capacities as to damages and upheld qualified immunity for individual officials as to damages.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process is not violated when an employer applies a reasonably interpreted, published professional-ethics standard that gives fair notice, even if it does not enumerate every prohibited act.
- A faculty ethics rule barring “exploitation” of students can reasonably cover using the teacher–student power imbalance to obtain sexual favors, including conditioning academic benefits on sexual involvement.
- An equal protection selective-enforcement claim requires evidence of discriminatory intent and that similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably; speculation is insufficient.
- A nonmovant opposing summary judgment must identify specific facts showing a genuine dispute or show, with specificity, that further discovery will likely yield material evidence.
- State universities and officials sued in their official capacities are generally immune from damages under the Eleventh Amendment, and individual officials are shielded from damages by qualified immunity absent violation of clearly established rights.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Korf’s discharge because the university reasonably treated his conduct as unethical exploitation under an incorporated AAUP ethics policy, Korf failed to produce evidence of discriminatory selective enforcement, additional discovery was not justified by specific proffers, and immunity doctrines barred damages against the university and protected individual officials.


Korf v. Ball State Univ., 726 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir. 1984)