An attorney who was allegedly fired from her job as an adjunct professor at a New Jersey public university will be allowed to pursue her civil rights claims in federal court, despite a case related to the same circumstances ongoing before the New Jersey Civil Service Commission. This ruling, passed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, says that the Younger abstention doctrine did not apply in the case, which can prevent someone from pursuing a claim in both state and federal court at the same time. However, due to the circumstances of the case, the Third Circuit ruled that Younger did not apply, allowing her to continue pursuing her claims in federal court.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
In Borowski v. Kean University, a licensed attorney who taught classes as an adjunct professor at a public university was fired after making comments on gender, immigration status, religion, and ethnicity that students found to be offensive. The attorney appealed the decision before the Civil Service Commission, but before a final decision was handed down, she also filed a suit in federal court for alleged civil rights violations, claiming the university had violated her First Amendment right to free speech. As a result, the defendant tried to have the federal suit dismissed for violating the Younger abstention doctrine.
What Was the Legal Issue Being Decided?
The primary legal issue in the decision was whether the appeal before the New Jersey Civil Service Commission prohibited the filing of the federal civil suit. Under the Younger doctrine, a federal court cannot go forward with certain types of lawsuits if a case related to the same matter is ongoing in a state tribunal. This means that the plaintiff would not be able to bring her civil rights claims until the Civil Service Commission issues had been fully resolved.
What Did the Court Decide?
According to the Third Circuit, the plaintiff’s federal civil rights suit was not precluded under Younger abstention. In their decision, they note that Younger only applies in certain types of lawsuits, such as “quasi-criminal civil enforcement actions,” which did not include the sort of dispute before the Civil Service Commission. Even then, they note that the Civil Service Commission had issued a final ruling, and thus was not ongoing or judicial and nature, and thus Younger would not apply.
What Impact Could This Have?
In a statement to the New Jersey Law Journal, Kevin Haverty, partner at Williams Cedar, who represented the plaintiff in this case, said: “I think the big issue in the case is that the Third Circuit reinforced the idea that abstaining from deciding these types of issues is extraordinarily rare. It reinforces the idea that the Younger abstention is a very, very rare remedy.” In other words, state-funded institutions like public universities should not rely on Younger abstention as a way of protecting against potential civil rights claims from their employees. These employees often have extensive rights, and if those rights are violated, these institutions may need to answer for their transgressions in both state and federal court.
Williams Cedar is a law firm dedicated to helping clients with personal injury, environmental law, and civil rights cases. We specialize in assisting clients who have been injured due to exposure to environmental toxins, including veterans and their loved ones. If you need legal assistance due to toxic exposure or other related matters, please give us a call at our New Jersey and Pennsylvania offices at (215) 557-0099, or visit our contact page.