FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES DISCHARGE OF TEACHER BY PUBLIC UNIVERSITY FOR FAR-RIGHT VIEWS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Robert L. McTiernan, Esq., rmctiernan@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5528

Jason Jorjani v. New Jersey Institute of Technology, et al., 151 F.4^th 135, 2025 WL 2586673 (3d. Cir. 2025)(The U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, overruled a district court decision that a teacher’s off-campus speech was not protected by the First Amendment because the University’s interest in “mitigating the disruption” of its operations “outweighs” the teacher’s constitutional interest in free expression.)

BACKGROUND

Jason Jorjani, a lecturer at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (the “University”), was hired to teach philosophy in 2015. His one-year contract was renewed in 2016 and 2017. During this period, Jorjani formed the “ALT-Right Corporation” and wrote essays arguing that “human racial equality” is a “left-wing myth” and Asians, Arabs, and Africans lack the “genetic basis” for high achievement. He also advocated “genetic engineering” and “embryo selection” to improve the genetic character of the population.

The University decided not to renew Jorjani’s contract following a New York Times article featuring a video of Jorjani’s remarks at a conference that “liberalism, democracy, and universal human rights” are “bankrupt…ideologies.” The piece also focused on Jorjani’s comments in a secretly recorded conversation in which he predicted that in 2050 bank notes would feature pictures of Adolf Hitler, who would be seen as a figure like Napoleon or Alexander the Great.

These revelations prompted statements from the President and Dean that Jorjani’s views were “antithetical” to the University’s “core values.” These were followed by statements from various departments and the Faculty Senate that Jorjani’s views produced “a discriminatory and intimidating education environment for [the] diverse student body” and a “hostile learning environment for students of color.”

DISCUSSION

In reversing the lower court’s dismissal of Jorjani’s First Amendment claim, the appellate court reiterated that a public employee’s speech is constitutionally protected as long as the employee speaks as a citizen and on a matter of public importance. The appellate court held that both requirements were met in this case. The court went on to hold that “the distractions” flowing from Jorjani’s speech did not “outweigh” his constitutional interest in expressing his opinions. The court emphasized that Jorjani’s speech took place outside of his academic environs and that the alleged “disruption” of the University’s operations amounted to disapproval, disagreement, and complaints. The court noted that the University never identified the number of calls or complaints it received or the details of students’ concerns. According to the Court of Appeals, the University presented “no objective evidence” that students questioned Jorjani’s ability to teach, except for one witness who recalled a student dropping Jorjani’s class.

The appellate court concluded that disputes and disagreements over Jorjani’s beliefs were “not disruption” but “reasoned debate.” Similarly, it held that the University’s interest in a “non-denigrating” environment is unrelated to a teacher’s “competence and qualifications.”

The Court of Appeals’ ultimate conclusion was that Jorjani was terminated because he “offered views it disliked,” and that denying First Amendment protection to him would permit universities to discipline employees “anytime their speech might cause offense.” 

PRACTICAL ADVICE

This decision marks a high-water mark for the protection of off-campus speech by public employees. It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeals did not even address whether a teacher’s outspoken belief that students who belong to certain racial or ethnic groups are genetically inferior is inherently “disruptive to the school’s operations.” Going forward, public institutions will have to make a specific and concrete showing of how an employee’s off-duty speech has harmed or obstructed the employee’s operation – a very high standard indeed. In this respect, the decision is reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in the Mahonoy Area School District case, which barred a public school from suspending a student from cheerleading for posting vulgar snapchat comments about the program.

During the controversy following the New York Times article about Jorjani, a law firm was retained to investigate whether Jorjani violated policy by not disclosing his outside activities and whether those activities reflected a conflict of interest. Given the context of the public controversy over Jorjani’s comments and the timing of his discharge, it might be challenging for the University to convince a jury that these were the actual reasons for the discharge and that Jorjani would have been fired even if he had not made the controversial statements.

This decision and, in fact, the entire trend of rulings in the federal courts, should alert public employers, particularly public educational institutions, not to react precipitously to public criticism resulting from a teacher’s or other employee’s expression of unpopular political or social views. In most cases, the timing of a discharge following public controversy will make it very difficult for the employer to claim in court that the controversial speech was not the true reason for the disciplinary action. If an investigation reveals potential violation of other policies, the wisest course is to follow progressive discipline with respect to those violations so that, in the event of subsequent suspension or discharge, the school is somewhat insulated from a claim that the true motivation was retaliation for protected speech.

For guidance on how this decision may affect your school, agency, or public entity—or to discuss best practices for handling employee speech issues—contact Robert McTiernan at (412) 594-5528 or rmctiernan@tuckerlaw.com.