From Robinson v. Damphousse, determined Wednesday by Choose Alan Albright (W.D. Tex.):
Plaintiff Dr. Idris Robinson is a non-tenured, however tenure monitor Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Texas State College. On June 29, 2024, Dr. Robinson delivered a speech in Asheville, North Carolina titled “Strategic Classes from the Palestinian Resistance” (“Asheville Speech”). Professor Robinson by no means affiliated the discuss with Texas State College. In the course of the Asheville Speech, viewers members who disagreed with Dr. Robinson’s views tried to livestream the occasion. A scuffle broke out. The police report documenting the incident doesn’t establish Dr. Robinson as a suspect or witness. Defendants don’t contend that Dr. Robinson incited or inspired the violence.
Dr. Robinson resumed educating within the fall with out incident. After the 2024 fall semester, and once more in March 2025, Dr. Robinson obtained glorious efficiency evaluations. ECF No. 1-3 at 74 (“Dr. Robinson is a incredible colleague, glorious in all areas of assessment. Worthy of Benefit.”); id. at 109 (2024-2025 third Yr Tenure-Observe Reappointment) (noting that the Affiliate Provost’s Motion Advice is to reappoint Dr. Robinson for one-year and that Dr. Robinson is “making good progress in direction of tenure”).
On June 5, 2025, people who disagreed with the content material of Dr. Robinson’s Asheville Speech started calling for Dr. Robinson’s firing on Instagram. That day, because of the posts, Texas State College started receiving complaints about Dr. Robinson. Sooner or later later, Dr. Robinson was positioned on administrative depart as a consequence of “a number of complaints and allegations concerning an incident that occurred in the summertime of 2024.” In July 2025, Dr. Robinson was knowledgeable that “the choice has been reached to not prolong your contract past the 2025-2026 tutorial 12 months….” …
Dr. Robinson contends the College’s non-renewal choice was because of the content material of the Asheville Speech, which Dr. Robinson contends violates his First Modification Rights. Thus far, Defendants haven’t provided some other cause for Dr. Robinson’s non-renewal, nor do Defendants refute Dr. Robinson’s competition that he was not renewed because of the Asheville Speech….
The court docket issued a preliminary injunction requiring that Robinson be reinstated; an excerpt from the evaluation:
To exhibit a prima facie case for a First Modification retaliation declare, a plaintiff should set up that: “(1) he suffered an antagonistic employment [action]; (2) his speech concerned a matter of public concern; (3) his curiosity in talking outweighed the governmental defendant’s curiosity in selling effectivity; and (4) the protected speech motivated the defendant’s conduct.” Right here, retaliation parts 2, 3, and 4 should not disputed by Defendants. {Additional, Defendants don’t contend that the Asheville Speech’s content material fell throughout the First Modification’s “permitted restrictions” [referring to exceptions such as for incitement, true threats, and the like -EV].} The Court docket, having reviewed Dr. Robinson’s proof, finds that he has met his burden of persuasion for retaliation parts 2, 3, and 4. Dr. Robinson happy factor 2 as a result of the Israel-Palestine battle is a matter of public concern. Dr. Robinson happy factor 3 as a result of the Asheville Speech didn’t disrupt college operations. Dr. Robinson happy factor 4 as a result of Defendants basically admit, and the timeline confirms, that Dr. Robinson’s speech motivated Defendants’ choice to not renew his contract. Thus, the one query remaining for the Court docket is whether or not Dr. Robinson suffered an antagonistic employment motion….
The Fifth Circuit has elaborated what constitutes an antagonistic employment motion within the context of a First Modification retaliation declare: “Antagonistic employment actions are discharges, demotions, refusals to rent, refusals to advertise, and reprimands.” … In accordance with Defendants, “non-renewal of a time period contract doesn’t seem on” [this] listing and, thus, will not be an antagonistic employment motion…. [But] Defendants’ refusal to resume is materially indistinguishable with a refusal to rent or a discharge …. The Fifth Circuit has confirmed {that a} refusal to re-appoint can represent an antagonistic employment motion equal to a discharge….
JT Morris (Basis for Particular person Rights and Expression) and Michael Thad Allen and Samantha Harris (Allen Harris PLLC) signify plaintiff.
