Groenewold v. Kelley, No. 16-4019 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss an action filed by plaintiff, challenging the termination of his employment from the University. The court held that plaintiff's speech stemmed from his professional responsibilities and was made in furtherance of those responsibilities, and was therefore not protected under the First Amendment; the pre- and post-termination procedures did not violate plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; plaintiff failed to establish a substantive due process claim because he failed to show that the University President's decision to terminate him was both conscience shocking and in violation of one or more fundamental rights; the district court properly dismissed the individual capacity claims against the University President based on qualified immunity; and the district court properly dismissed the claims against defendants in their official capacity.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Loken and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment and civil rights. In action by former director of the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota alleging he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights and in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, the district court did not err in dismissing the action for failure to allege a constitutional violation; plaintiff's speech was made pursuant to his professional duties and in the furtherance of those duties and was not protected by the First Amendment; the pre- and post-termination procedures used in plaintiff's termination provided procedural due process and did not violate plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; plaintiff failed to establish a substantive due process claim because he failed to show defendant's decision to terminate him was both "conscience shocking" and in violation of a fundamental right; further, the termination had a basis in fact as shown by plaintiff's own admissions concerning his actions; as plaintiff failed to allege defendant violated his constitutional rights, the district court properly dismissed the individual capacity claims against defendant; nor did the district court err in dismissing the claims against defendants in their official capacity as there was no constitutional violation to support a Section 1983 claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.