Quantcast

Ex-University of Scranton professor says school violated his rights when he was forced to disclose COVID-19 vaccination status

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Ex-University of Scranton professor says school violated his rights when he was forced to disclose COVID-19 vaccination status

Lawsuits
Franklinekepnerjr

Kepner | Kepner Kepner & Corba

SCRANTON – A former professor at the University of Scranton alleges that his constitutional rights to privacy and bodily autonomy were violated when the institution attempted to force him to disclose his COVID-19 vaccination status.

Benjamin Bishop of Orangeville filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 16 versus the University of Scranton, the University of Scranton’s Faculty Affairs Council and Jeffrey Gingerich, the University of Scranton’s former Provost and Senior Vice-President for Academic Affairs.

“At all times germane hereto, the plaintiff was a tenured full professor at the University of Scranton. All parties were bound by the provisions of the faculty handbook of the University of Scranton dated May 24, 2021. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the aforementioned contract, the plaintiff could only be terminated by the defendant for financial exigency, discontinuance of a program, national emergency, major catastrophe or dismissal for adequate cause,” the suit says.

“Adequate cause for dismissal relates directly and substantially to the fitness of a faculty member in the faculty member’s professional capacity as a teacher and researcher. The contract specifically provides that dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights as American citizens. The defendant university violated the contract between the plaintiff and defendant by terminating the plaintiff from the university on May 10, 2022, ostensibly for refusing to disclose his COVID-19 vaccination status.”

The suit adds that the plaintiff, who was in fact fully vaccinated, did not believe that it was the defendant university’s right to compel him to disclose his vaccination status and that he had “ethical concerns” about the university’s policies related to COVID-19.

“Through the actions of defendant and other non-party individuals and entities, vaccines have become politicized to a point whether receiving or declining a vaccine has become a political act in the eyes of the public, and being compelled into discussing one’s vaccine status is compelling that person to engage in political speech,” the suit states.

“Disclosing one’s status as not vaccinated against COVID-19 has become politicized in such a way that the expressing of one’s opposition has acquired a political meaning: Bringing public derision down upon the individual or, in fewer instances, garnering public acclaim for the individual, largely depending on the political beliefs of the public toward coerced governmental action against its citizens. Because of its intensely toxic political nature, disclosing one’s COVID-19 vaccination status holds the intent, weight and social effect of partisan political speech, and should be treated as such by this Honorable Court.”

Bishop added that terminating him for refusing to disclose his vaccination status constituted a breach of his employment contract with the university, that he was not permitted to be present at the hearing when his termination was considered and that he was defamed by defendant Gingerich for refusing to disclose his vaccination status, among other allegations.

For counts of compulsion of political speech, violation of the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, wrongful dismissal in violation of Pennsylvania Public Policy, breach of contract, violation of due process rights, violation of rights to be free from selective enforcement, defamation and breach of duty of fair representation, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, professional reinstatement, costs, attorney’s fees and any additional and further relief the Court deems appropriate.

The plaintiff is represented by Franklin E. Kepner Jr. and Franklin E. Kepner III of Kepner Kepner & Corba, in Berwick.

The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:22-cv-01831

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News