TALLAHASSEE --- A federal appeals court has backed a decision by Florida Atlantic University to fire a professor who drew national attention for questioning whether the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut actually occurred.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected James Tracy鈥檚 First Amendment arguments that he was fired in retaliation for views posted on a blog. The panel upheld a jury鈥檚 decision on the First Amendment issue and a district judge鈥檚 rulings against Tracy on other issues.
鈥淭o establish that he was discharged in retaliation for protected speech, plaintiff had to prove, among other things, that his speech played a 鈥榮ubstantial part鈥� in the university鈥檚 decision to terminate him,鈥� said the , written by appeals-court Judge Julie Carnes and joined by Senior Judges Stanley Marcus and Paul Kelly. 鈥淭he jury found that plaintiff had failed to do so, as it found that plaintiff鈥檚 blog speech was not a motivating factor in the university鈥檚 decision. We conclude that there was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury鈥檚 verdict.鈥�
Tracy was a tenured faculty member in FAU鈥檚 School of Communication and Multimedia Studies and had a blog that explored conspiracy theories and criticized the media, according to the appeals court. He drew attention for questioning whether the Sandy Hook massacre --- in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults --- had occurred.
The firing came after a protracted dispute between Tracy and the university about a request that he report his outside activities. The appeals court said such reporting was required under a collective bargaining agreement.
In addition to raising the First Amendment arguments about retaliation, Tracy also argued that the reporting policy was vague and overbroad and that the university had breached the collective bargaining agreement by firing him, according to Monday鈥檚 opinion.
The appeals court said the reporting policy was designed to identify potential conflicts of interest. It said Tracy had not shown that the university had prohibited any professor from engaging in speech.
The opinion said Tracy argued that 鈥渘o reasonable juror could have found that his blog speech did not motivate the university to fire him,鈥� but it concluded that he 鈥渃herry-picks鈥� the evidence and that he was fired for insubordination related to not filing reports about his outside activities.
鈥淕iven the university鈥檚 multiple warnings that plaintiff was required to file outside-activity reports and plaintiff鈥檚 repeated refusal to do so, there is little doubt that plaintiff was insubordinate,鈥� Carnes wrote. 鈥淚ndeed, plaintiff privately confessed to his union president that his conduct was 鈥榗ut-and-dry鈥� insubordination and that he had not complied with university directives because he believed his tenure status would insulate him against any discipline.鈥�