According to the plaintiff, “[Prof.] Harner believed the Plaintiff’s planned zine project [class assignment] centered on ‘the issue of ‘trans’ people sexually assaulting others in prison,’ a topic Harner deemed to have ‘numerous problems.’”
From yesterday’s ruling issued by Judge David Estudillo of the Western District of Washington in Arias v. Univ. of Wash. Tacoma:
For purposes of the current motion, and resolving the disputed material facts in the plaintiff’s favor, the Court determines:
The plaintiff’s contact with Defendant Vern Harner on April 20, 2023 was brief. The plaintiff explained she was considering focusing her zine project on women’s rights and showed Harner her computer screen displaying a Google search for a reachable article, noting that she did not have any article open at that moment. Harner spoke little, advising only that the source the plaintiff planned to use should be reputable. Harner did not tell the plaintiff that her project idea violated social work values and ethics.
Sometime later that day or the following day, Harner identified and reviewed an article that she believed the plaintiff had left open on her screen. Harner concluded that the plaintiff’s intended zine project concerned “the issue of ‘trans’ people sexually assaulting others in prison,” a topic she regarded as fraught with issues. One concern she cited was the plaintiff’s supposed reliance on that article, which she described as being “full of TERF and far-right dog whistles and talking points.” {TERF is understood to mean trans-exclusionary radical feminism.} Harner consulted with Defendant Claudia Sellmaier, recounting Harner’s impressions of the plaintiff to Sellmaier.
On April 27, 2023, the plaintiff delivered her draft zine project to Harner shortly after 11:30 a.m. Harner had scheduled three to five minutes with each student that morning. Harner did not specify why the plaintiff’s draft targeted transgender individuals or which particular social-work standards she believed the plaintiff violated. The plaintiff stated she did not grasp why her project was not viewed as a social justice issue.
Harner became visibly upset while reviewing and discussing the draft, eventually throwing up her hands and telling the plaintiff, “this is targeting transgender.” The exchange ended, and at a later point the plaintiff asked to meet again with Harner that day, but Harner said she was not available.
Sometime in the afternoon of April 27, 2023, Harner reached out to the Dean of the School of Social Work (Defendant Keva Miller) to report the interactions with the plaintiff. Based on Harner’s account, Miller advised Harner to initiate a referral to the Professional Standards Committee (PSC).
At 2:12 p.m., Harner sent an email to the plaintiff stating that they would not be able to meet that afternoon. The plaintiff was directed to contact Sellmaier and Chris Barrans for any further questions or concerns. Harner described the draft as “harmful and not aligned with social work values & ethics” and attached three links for the plaintiff to review, but did not explain why the draft was harmful or misaligned. Harner also suggested that future discussions could address “the intersection of trans rights and women’s rights when that conversation is approached appropriately and in good faith.”
By 2:50 p.m., just 38 minutes after sending the email, Harner had completed and sent a PSC referral form. In the referral, Harner asserted that the plaintiff’s proposed zine topic was “extremely anti-trans,” that Harner suspected the plaintiff had sent an anonymous email to Harner a few weeks earlier, that the plaintiff did not believe her topic was misaligned with social-work values, and that the plaintiff “sees women’s & trans rights as competing issues.” Regarding why Harner chose not to inform the plaintiff about the PSC review request, she indicated that she had “connected” the plaintiff with the BASW chair and the faculty advisor and noted that “further escalation may include safety concerns.” The record does not specify why Harner believed safety concerns were present. The PSC referral form likewise does not identify any social-work standards that were violated.
The PSC convened a meeting on May 16, even though the plaintiff had raised concerns that Harner had not attempted to resolve the issue with her beforehand. No one at the PSC meeting pinpointed which social-work standards were violated. The committee also declined to name the specific standards violated in subsequent email communications with the plaintiff after the PSC meeting. Only in the plaintiff’s termination letter did the defendants identify the social-work standards said to be violated. The letter stated that Harner initiated the PSC referral on April 27 because the plaintiff had not reconsidered her draft topic and “did not arrange to stop by Dr. Harner’s office to discuss the matter further” on that date. Yet the record shows Harner was unavailable to meet with the plaintiff after class on April 27, that the plaintiff was directed to consult others, and that 38 minutes after conveying this instruction, Harner submitted the PSC referral citing a potential safety concern.
The court concluded that, on these facts, the plaintiff’s First Amendment objections to the PSC referral could be presented to a jury:
Based on the cited facts, a jury could reasonably find that Harner harbored a personal disagreement with the plaintiff’s views on transgender issues, that this personal stance motivated the PSC referral, that Harner’s personal bias tainted the PSC process, and that the ultimate decision to remove the plaintiff from the PSC program rested on personal disagreements rather than on established professional standards.
The court reached a similar conclusion regarding the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim:
The plaintiff asserted that Harner failed to comply with Manual language requiring that “individuals who are directly involved should make a concerted effort to resolve the concern prior to a referral to the PSC” and argued that UWT did not “follow[] the policy measures it had implemented and promised [Plaintiff].” The plaintiff also invoked UWT’s Mission Statement, Race & Equity Initiative, and Diversity Blueprint, along with other “fundamental principles of inclusion and expression embodied in its own written policies and promises,” contending that UWT breached its pledge to “conform[] with academic standards espoused in governing documents as expressed above in the factual allegations.” …
Here, the PSC guidelines contained in the Program Manual require that individuals involved in a concern, including Harner, undertake a genuine effort to resolve the issue prior to directing it to the PSC. UWT likewise acknowledges its duty to maintain an environment that supports freedom of inquiry and expression to the greatest extent compatible with orderly operation.
These provisions support a reasonable expectation that a student like the plaintiff would not face sanctions based on a professor’s personal disagreement with the student’s views on transgender issues and that the student would have an opportunity to address the concern prior to PSC referral.
Joan K. Mell (III Branches Law PLLC) represents Arias.
