The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has allowed our client’s First Amendment case against The Ohio State University to move forward. Sullivan v. The Ohio State University, No. 2:23-cv-3174 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2025). Daniel P. Petrov and co-counsel Sarah Wyss represent Dr. Mark Sullivan, a former senior lecturer at Ohio State’s Fisher College of Business.
What the case is about
For years Dr. Sullivan taught Crucial Conversations, a popular course that trains students to handle difficult, conflict-ridden situations in their careers. After students complained that he used a racial epithet as part of the course material during a classroom lecture, Ohio State ended his employment in 2022. Dr. Sullivan alleges that the university acted in retaliation for speech the First Amendment protects.
What the court held
Ohio State asked the court to dismiss the case. It argued that the First Amendment did not protect the speech and that qualified immunity shielded the decision-makers from liability. The court rejected both arguments. As the court put it, “Beyond just race in general, Sullivan’s speech, as alleged, also addresses the specific matter of whether using the n-word in class can have worthwhile pedagogical value. This matter is undeniably one of public concern.”
Why it matters
Public universities are government employers, and the First Amendment limits their power to discipline faculty for classroom speech on matters of public concern. The decision applies that principle to a hard case: teaching material that many people find offensive. The ruling has drawn national attention, including from Professor Eugene Volokh at Reason.
The case continues in the Southern District of Ohio.
The Petrov Group Co., LPA represents employees and people whose civil rights were violated in Cleveland and across Ohio. Call 216-621-3500.