## Facts

- Justin D. Radolf, M.D., was a tenured professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) and founding Director of UCHC’s Center for Microbial Pathogenesis.
- UCHC officials alleged Radolf falsified or fabricated data in grant proposals submitted to funding agencies.
- UCHC convened a Special Review Board, which found academic misconduct; UCHC issued a letter of reprimand, imposed three years of academic probation, and initiated review of his grant proposals and contracts for integrity.
- The federal Office of Research Integrity investigated; Radolf admitted wrongdoing and accepted five years of probation for Public Health Service–related activities.
- Radolf voluntarily resigned his administrative directorship but remained a tenured professor, continued teaching, and retained salary.
- Radolf later sought reinstatement as Director; the university denied reinstatement.
- He was excluded from participating in preparation and research work connected to a Department of Defense grant proposal.
- Radolf sued the university entities and officials, asserting procedural and substantive due process violations, First Amendment violations (including retaliation and academic freedom), a Lanham Act claim, and related state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Radolf had a constitutionally protected property interest in the directorship (or related research opportunities) such that denial of reinstatement or related actions required procedural due process.
2. Whether the university’s actions, including exclusion from a grant effort and related restrictions, constituted an adverse employment action supporting a First Amendment retaliation/academic-freedom claim.
3. Whether the alleged misrepresentations about Radolf’s research or contributions were actionable under the Lanham Act as “commercial advertising or promotion.”
4. Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving all federal claims.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all federal claims.
- The court held Radolf lacked a protected property interest in the directorship and therefore could not establish a procedural due process violation.
- The court rejected the First Amendment claims for failure to show an adverse employment action that materially altered the terms or conditions of employment.
- The court dismissed the Lanham Act claim because the challenged conduct was not commercial advertising or promotion and did not state a cognizable § 43(a) theory.
- The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process requires a “legitimate claim of entitlement” under state law, contract, or established policy; an administrative assignment is not a protected property interest absent a clear entitlement.
- A voluntary resignation from an administrative post weighs against any claim that the employer “deprived” the employee of that position for due process purposes.
- A First Amendment retaliation claim requires, among other elements, an adverse employment action that materially changes employment conditions; investigations, reprimands, or loss of discrete opportunities may be insufficient without tangible alteration of core status or pay.
- Lanham Act § 43(a) targets commercial speech, including “commercial advertising or promotion”; internal academic disputes and grant-related conduct generally fall outside that scope.
- After dismissal of all federal claims, a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

## Conclusion

The district court entered summary judgment for the university on all federal claims, ruling that a tenured professor had no protected entitlement to an administrative directorship or specific grant participation, that the challenged actions did not amount to a constitutionally significant adverse employment action, and that the Lanham Act did not apply to the noncommercial academic conduct alleged; state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.


Radolf v. Univ. of Conn., 364 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 2005)