A federal judge agreed last month that a former community college professor could proceed to sue the school’s leadership for ending his employment, allegedly in retaliation for his constitutionally protected speech that angered others in the academic community.

Michael Lenz started as a political science professor at Arapahoe Community College in August 2019, where he was effectively an at-will employee for his first three years. At the end of the spring 2022 semester, when the school had to decide whether to give him tenure-like status, the president instead elected to end his employment.

Lenz alleged he had exemplary performance as a teacher and a supervisor’s recommendation for tenure. Therefore, the termination could only be based on one thing: a series of comments he made over email and in presentations that some of his colleagues disagreed with because of his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, equity and “misguided” diversity policies.

Although the defendants argued the timing of Lenz’s speech merely coincided with the school’s decision-making schedule over his future, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer believed Lenz had alleged more than a coincidence.

“Taken together, the allegations in the complaint that Professor Lenz was a high-performing professor who had been recommended for retention, but whose protected speech had caused conflict throughout the ACC community,” Brimmer wrote, “are sufficient to plausibly allege that Professor Lenz’s protected speech was a motivating factor in defendants’ non-renewal of Professor Lenz’s contract.”

Lenz’s complaint described receiving positive performance ratings and favorable comments from students in his first two years of teaching. During that time, Lenz also held lectures on topics that included “The Revival of the Hippie Counterculture,” “Transcending the Liberal-Conservative Divide” and “Making Sense of the Capitol Siege.”

Lenz alleged things took a turn beginning in late 2021. He planned to give a lecture about the federal government using the COVID-19 pandemic for a “radical expansion of power at the expense of our personal liberties.” In response, Lenz was allegedly asked to change the description or possibly add an “alternative viewpoint.” Lenz decided to cancel the lecture.

In January 2022, Lenz sent an email to Arapahoe Community College employees asking for faculty to have the option of teaching remotely due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. He also questioned why vaccinated staff were exempt from routine testing rules. The dean of health forwarded the email to colleagues and accused Lenz of “disseminating myths and misinformation.”

One month later, Lenz planned a lecture titled “The Dangers of Social Justice in Higher Ed.” The description indicated he would talk about “the suppression of free speech for those with conservative/libertarian viewpoints” and the reinforcement of “racial, gender and ethnic divisions through misguided policies.” Weeks later, Lenz was directed to complete an “alternative course assignment” that allegedly required him to attend an “equity-minded teaching symposium.”

Finally, in early May, Lenz delivered a lecture billed as a critique of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that encourage “a debilitating mindset of victimhood.”

One week later, Provost and Vice President Cheryl Calhoun sent President Stephanie J. Fuji a recommendation that Lenz’s contract not be renewed. On May 19, Fuji notified Lenz he would not be receiving tenure.

Lenz sued Calhoun and Fuji, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. He noted both women had joined the school less than one year beforehand and he had received a favorable recommendation from his supervisor.

“With the Defendants having that limited set of knowledge, it is plausible to infer that it was Professor Lenz’s speech, and not his exemplary performance, that was the motivating factor for the nonrenewal recommendation and decision,” wrote his attorneys.

The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing there was no proof Lenz’s speech led to their decision.

“Defendants had been aware of Plaintiff’s viewpoints for months before making the non-renewal decision, and … had already planned to consider Plaintiff’s contract renewal during that timeframe,” wrote the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, adding the allegations suggested only “coincidental timing.”

However, Brimmer agreed with Lenz that the timing coupled with the lack of any other apparent reason for terminating him suggested Lenz’s speech motivated the defendants’ actions.

As alleged, the various events in sequence “create a plausible inference that defendants disagreed with the views expressed in Professor Lenz’s lecture and imposed retaliatory academic burdens on him,” Brimmer wrote in a March 19 order.

At the same time, Brimmer dismissed the claims Lenz made against the defendants in their “official capacity,” which meant an unlawful policy had to exist to motivate his termination. Brimmer concluded Lenz had not established the existence of such a policy, nor could Fuji be considered a “policymaker.”

The case is Lenz v. Fuji et al.