Lester v. Powers

Facts

D was a student majoring in psychology. In early 1985, during her junior year, she took a class in abnormal psychology from P, then an associate professor. One of the classes was a discussion of homosexuality -- specifically, the appropriateness of classifying homosexuality as a disorder when the person is unhappy about his or her sexual orientation, but not when the person is happy. D was a closet lesbian, and the entire internal process of her coming to terms with her sexuality was causing her considerable internal turmoil. She had not, at that point, made public her sexual orientation beyond a few friends. In a class discussion, at least one student made comments to the effect that 'gays are sick.' P questioned the appropriateness of the differential classification of the two classifications of homosexuality, and said that he had gay friends in the mental health profession who themselves did not understand why they were 'that way.' D understood his tone of voice to indicate disapproval. An objective observer might not have found the class discussion hostile toward homosexuality; in fact, one of the students present later stated that 'no reasonable view of the class could see it that way' and that it was in no way unusual for a classroom discussion of a controversial topic. P denies any suggestion that he expressed personal prejudice against homosexuals or even allowed such expressions in class discussions. After the class, d went immediately to an assistant dean and complained that she had found P's handling of the subject offensive. She repeated that assertion later to various students, faculty members, and members of the college administration. D did not initiate any formal complaint, nor did she ever approach P to discuss her feelings. D graduated from Colby. As a part of the tenure review process, the Committee on Promotion and Tenure solicited letters from former students about P. D did not respond to this invitation to comment before the Committee's deadline, October 15. D contacted the Dean of the Faculty and asked if it was too late to comment. The Dean invited her to do so, even though the deadline had passed. D wrote a letter primarily related D's version of the class discussion that upset her, together with several other minor incidents involving P that she found distasteful, and concluded: I don't want to use this letter as a way to 'get even' with Professor Lester. I have found him to be entirely knowledgeable and competent in his field, and I have received valuable assistance from him on one or two occasions in my work. But as an ex-member of the college committee on sexual harassment, I know that a student should not ever be made to feel uncomfortable or intimidated in her/his learning on account of gender or sexual orientation, and I sadly feel this was definitely the case for me. I also know of others who still feel intimidated, much as I have and for the same reasons, and who have not written to add their input to this decision; I thank this Committee for the opportunity to express my (and their) opinion that Professor Lewis Lester should not be tenured. The Dean distributed D's letter to the Committee. The Committee recommended that P not be granted tenure. P petitioned for reconsideration. He prepared a detailed rebuttal of all the reasons for his tenure denial, including a lengthy criticism and refutation of d's letter. Upon reconsideration, the Committee reversed itself and recommended that P be granted tenure. The President of the College concluded that P should not receive tenure, and made that recommendation to the board of trustees, who denied tenure to P. The President's affidavit states that he would have made the same recommendation to the Board even in the absence of D's letter. P sued D for libel and tortious interference with contract; he also sought punitive damages. D moved for a summary judgment on the basis that her letter expressed opinions and not facts, that P had consented to all tenure procedures by virtue of his employment contract and thus had consented to possibly defamatory statements about him, and that D's letter did not cause the denial of tenure. the motion was denied. It was renewed on the basis that she enjoyed a 'qualified privilege.' The court granted summary judgment. P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.