A district court judge has ruled in favor of a university professor who was terminated from her position for challenging COVID-19 mandates, allowing her First Amendment lawsuit against the institution to move ahead.
The incidents that led to the lawsuit took place in 2021. On Aug. 18, 2021, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System announced a mandatory mask policy.
On Aug. 24, Ms. Griffin took part in a luncheon meeting via Zoom where the speaker was Glenn Cummings, president of the University of Southern Maine. Ms. Griffin claims that Mr. Cummings was not wearing a mask at the time.
On the same day, Ms. Griffin sent an email to the Dean of the College of Management and Human Service, stating that she has been following “science, data, and evidence” regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
She was “searching for anything that will support wearing a mask while indoors as well as vaccinating an entire school population as the optimal method for stopping the transmission of the virus. The reality is that my research has found no evidence to support these measures,” the email stated.
Ms. Griffin attached a separate document to the email summarizing the results of her research. She did not find “any overwhelming support for the wearing of masks nor the mandating of vaccines, especially since the overall survival rate is 99.7 percent if infected with Covid. And finally, from a legal perspective, asking for my vaccination status is a violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act),” said the email.
Ms. Griffin then met with the Dean in another Zoom meeting. She claims she never refused to wear a mask and never stated she would violate university policy.
Following the meeting, her fall semester classes were removed. In a subsequent disciplinary conference, the administrators allegedly told Ms. Griffin that she would not be allowed to teach her courses 100 percent online unless she resigned and accepted a part-time position.
On Sept. 8, 2021, Ms. Griffin received a letter from Mr. Cummings announcing her suspension and that the university was moving to terminate her. Ms. Griffin claimed that the letter falsely stated she refused to comply with university policy and rejected wearing a mask. She was terminated on Sept. 22.
Free Speech as Employee Versus Citizen
A key issue examined by the court to determine whether Ms. Griffin’s First Amendment claim against the university could move ahead was the nature of her speech when she raised her concerns about masking and vaccination with authorities.
“In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not conclusively establish that her speech was made as a citizen; ‘it is sufficient that the complaint alleges facts that plausibly set forth citizen speech,” the judge wrote, citing another case.
Judge Levy eventually decided in favor of Ms. Griffin, pointing out that she had “pleaded sufficient facts” supporting the conclusion that although her speech related to duties as a public employee, the subject matter of the said speech was related to a “matter of great public concern” and was not just confined to her role as professor.
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley called Judge Levy’s decision in the case “balanced and fair.”
“Faced with a dissenting faculty member, the school opted to seek her termination rather than defend its policies or allow a dialogue on these measures. As a public university, the Maine legislature should take note of this case and the need to reinforce free speech protections in the system.”
Even though masks are being pushed as a viable way to control the COVID-19 pandemic, some experts have refuted such claims.
In 2020, after the pandemic, recommendations for wearing masks suddenly changed “without having any new professional support to confirm that it does indeed have effectiveness against respiratory infection.”
