A university professor's third amended complaint against his employer has been dismissed due to insufficient allegations, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battle. On September 18, 2024, Jason Hill filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against DePaul University, its Provost Salma Ghanem, and Scott Paeth, President of DePaul’s Faculty Council.
Jason Hill, a tenured philosophy professor at DePaul University in Chicago, claims that his rights were violated following the publication of an article he authored in April 2019. The article titled "The Moral Case for Israel Annexing the West Bank — and Beyond" was published in The Federalist and sparked controversy for its provocative views on Israeli-Palestinian relations. In response to the article, DePaul’s Faculty Council approved a resolution critical of Hill's work. Hill alleges that this resolution breached contractual obligations outlined in the Faculty Handbook and defamed him by labeling his work as inaccurate and promoting racism.
Hill's lawsuit comprises several counts: breach of contract against DePaul University; defamation per se and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against all defendants; and discrimination and harassment under the Illinois Human Rights Act (Human Rights Act) against DePaul. He argues that the Faculty Handbook provisions were violated when the Faculty Council censured him without following proper disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, he claims that statements made in the resolution damaged his reputation and career prospects both within and outside DePaul.
The court found that Hill failed to establish a breach of contract because the Faculty Handbook did not require preemptive disapproval or repudiation of faculty resolutions by university officials. Additionally, it ruled that Hill did not suffer any tangible damages from these alleged breaches. Regarding defamation, the court determined that statements made in the resolution were nonactionable opinions rather than false assertions of fact about Hill. Consequently, they could not be considered defamatory per se.
Hill also claimed intentional interference with prospective economic advantage by citing lost opportunities for speaking engagements at other institutions post-resolution approval. However, he failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectancy of future engagements or show any impropriety on DePaul’s part aimed at disrupting these relationships. Moreover, no causal link was established between DePaul’s actions and his alleged losses.
Lastly, Hill alleged employment discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, and sexual orientation under the Human Rights Act but could not prove an adverse employment action as required by law. Despite remaining employed as a tenured professor with no reduction in pay or rank changes following these events—his claims were deemed speculative rather than concrete losses resulting from discriminatory practices.
Representing Jason Hill is attorney [Plaintiff's Lawyer], while [Defendants' Lawyers] represent DePaul University along with Provost Salma Ghanem & Scott Paeth respectively before Judge James E Snyder presiding over case number No 20 L 4358.