Judge Allows Professor Fired for Questioning COVID-19 Vaccination to Sue University

Students and parents arrive masked for the first day of the school year at Grant Elementary School in Los Angeles, Calif., on Aug. 16, 2021. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

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.

Professor Patricia Griffin, who was formerly employed as a professor at the University of Southern Maine, had filed a lawsuit (pdf) alleging that the institution terminated her for asking valid questions about mask and vaccination policies on campus during the COVID-19 pandemic period. She claimed that the university’s action against her violated free speech rights protected under the First Amendment.

The University then filed a motion to dismiss the case partially. On Aug. 16, U.S. District Judge Jon Levy ruled (pdf) that Ms. Griffin’s First Amendment claim can move forward, while dismissing her other charges.

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.

The Epoch Times reached out to the university for comment.

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.

A medical worker prepares the COVID-19 vaccination after the thawing stage outside of UCI Medical Center, in Orange, Calif., on Dec. 16, 2020. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

“The ‘threshold inquiry’ to determine whether a public employee engaged in protected speech is “whether [the employee] spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” Judge Levy wrote in the ruling (pdf). “If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment retaliation claim. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises.”

“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.

Following the decision, University of Maine System spokesperson Tory Ryden told Just the News that the institution “will continue to defend its actions and looks forward to the court reaching a final resolution in this case.”

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley called Judge Levy’s decision in the case “balanced and fair.”

“Putting aside the merits for trial, what should be clear is that, if the underlying facts are proven, the university acted in an abusive and capricious manner,” he wrote in his blog.

“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 an interview with The Epoch Times, Yoav Yehezkelli, a specialist in internal medicine and medical management, pointed out that “all the studies done in the world until 2020 showed that there is no justification” for wearing masks to prevent the spread and infection of a respiratory virus.

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.”

A review of mask-use studies published in January this year found that when compared to those who wore no masks, “wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness.”