Hollister

Hollister v. Tuttle

Good Law
210 F.3d 1033·2000 WL 501369
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 30, 2000No. 98-35058California1,164 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Noonan, J.

ORDER

The opinion filed on March 30, 2000 is amended as follows:

OPINION

Michael A. Hollister appeals the judgment against him in his § 1983 action against members of the faculty of Portland State University (PSU). We hold that, as to five defendants, Hollister did not allege any constitutional deprivation; the judgment as to them is affirmed. As to the other defendants, we hold that Hollister, a faculty member at PSU, had a clearly established right to speak freely on public educational issues and that it was, therefore, error to recognize qualified immunity on the part of defendants alleged to have retaliated against him by denying him a promotion and pay increases. We, accordingly, reverse this part of the judgment and remand.

PROCEEDINGS

On August 30, 1996, Hollister filed his second amended complaint in the district court. He alleged that he was a tenured professor of English, teaching traditional American literature courses in the College of Liberal Arts of PSU; that beginning in the 1970s he spoke out publicly against feminist criticism of male writers in American literature and against the increase of non-traditional, feminist-oriented courses being offered in the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.