PHILADELPHIA – A former Cabrini University professor and Palestinian-American, who was fired from his role at the school after two Jewish civic groups reported tweets of his that they believed were anti-Semitic, has seen some of his claims survive a dismissal motion.
Kareem A. Tannous first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 22 versus Cabrini University, The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, its President and CEO Michael Balaban, its Director Jason Holtzman, StopAntiSemitism.org and John/Jane Does 1-20.
“This is an action brought by a former university professor who contends that he was unlawfully terminated from his teaching position at Cabrini University after two community groups – The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia and StopAntiSemitism.org – wrongfully accused him of publishing anti-Semitic tweets. Plaintiff Kareem Tannous alleges that defendant Cabrini University breached his employment contract, created a hostile work environment and unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against him by firing him,” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald A. McHugh said, in an Oct. 4 memorandum opinion.
“He also advances a common law tort claim of tortious interference against the two community groups, as well as claims of defamation and invasion of privacy through false light against StopAntiSemitism.org. Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims against them. Tannous’ retaliation, breach of contract and false light claims all survive, but the facts alleged do not plausibly establish his remaining claims, requiring dismissal.”
Tannous was employed by Cabrini University as an Assistant Professor of Business since June 2020 and had received excellent performance evaluations.
In the winter of 2022 and on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Tannous published tweets on his personal Twitter account expressing his opposition to such a remembrance and advocating for the freedom of Palestine.
Those tweets caught the attention of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, its CEO Michael Balaban and Director Jason Holtzman, who penned a letter to then-Cabrini University President Donald Taylor, expressing their view that Tannous’ words were anti-Semitic, were tantamount to conduct unbecoming of the university and constituted “publicly spreading anti-Semitic and anti-Israel commentary, and making posts in support of the destruction of the State of Israel.”
In response, Tannous argued that his writings were not anti-Semitic, but only critical of Israel and its government – and furthermore, that he “never identified himself with Cabrini on his social media platform, that he did not introduce his political views while teaching or in conversation with students, and that no students raised objections to him regarding his views.”
Though offered an opportunity to respond to the letter, Tannous refused and contended that he “did not feel that he had to explain his ethnicity to anyone.”
In July 2022, StopAntiSemitism.org published an article titled “Kareem Tannous – Professor of Hate,” which labeled Professor Tannous as “Anti-Semite of the Week.”
In the wake of the article, Tannous was summoned to a meeting by new Cabrini University President Helen Drinan, the Cabrini University Human Resources Director, and a representative from Palestine Legal, Amal Thabateh.
Though Thabateh stated that she “did not find [the tweets] to be hate speech ‘in the context of which they were posted’, Tannous claims that “President Drinan refused to read his tweets in the proper context and observed that ‘people criticize policies of governments all the time, without being accused of being against a particular people.”
About two weeks later, Tannous was informed that he was being dismissed and he says he has not been able to secure a teaching position since.
This past March, Tannous filed litigation against the university, both civic organizations and the former group’s leadership, pleading claims of discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract and hostile work environment in violation of both state and federal law against the university, tortious interference against the Federation and StopAntiSemitism.org, in addition to defamation and invasion of privacy (false light) against StopAntiSemitism.org.
In his opinion, McHugh found that sufficient evidence was pled for the plaintiff to retain his claims for breach of contract, retaliation and false light, while dismissing his other claims and three of the defendants; the Federation, Balaban and Holtzman.
“Plaintiff [does not] plausibly indicate that Cabrini only perceived his tweets as anti-Semitic because of his Palestinian-American identity, such that his protected status was a but-for cause of his termination. The complaint alleges no facts to suggest that Cabrini has or would have reacted differently to a similarly situated non-Palestinian-American employee. And considering the rhetoric employed in the tweets at issue – suggesting in part that Israel should be ‘eradicated’ and characterizing it as a ‘Nazi’ state, – I am persuaded that it would be objectively reasonable for any employer to be concerned about such a choice of language, regardless of the author’s ethnic identity,” McHugh stated.
“Cabrini’s willingness to hire Tannous when it likely knew of his tweets, coupled with its lack of action when it indisputably knew of his continued tweets between February and July, further minimizes any plausible inference of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color or national origin. And, as noted above, at least two tweets following his first meeting with Cabrini administrators were cast in a particularly inflammatory tone. With these facts and the weight of authority against him, I cannot find that plaintiff has sufficiently pled circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.”
Several of his other claims were likewise dismissed for insufficient evidence, but the breach of contract, retaliation and false light claims were retained.
“Although Tannous’ claims are based on the [faculty] handbook, I cannot find the faculty handbook submitted as ‘undisputedly authentic.’ First, the 1940 Statement – which both parties discuss as if it is referenced in the handbook – is not mentioned in the version of the handbook that defendant attached. Second, defendant’s citations to the exhibit do not correspond to the handbook attached. Given these discrepancies, I can hardly declare [the attached exhibit] ‘undisputedly authentic’ and will not consider it in resolving the motion. Without the handbook, Cabrini has few remaining arguments. Defendant argues that it is not bound by the 1940 Statement because the handbook only claims ‘support – not adoption’ of that policy. But without an undisputed version of the handbook to consider, I cannot dismiss the Complaint on that basis. Likewise, Cabrini’s point that Tannous’ employment contract did not guarantee his renewal is not dispositive at this stage. Even if I were to find the employment contract submitted by Cabrini ‘undisputedly authentic,’ the document shows that Tannous was already renewed for the 2022–2023 school year as of May 2022, and it refers to a handbook provision governing termination. Without an authentic version of the handbook, there remain issues of fact that require resolution,” McHugh stated.
“StopAntiSemitism.org further argues that dismissal is warranted because ‘an opinion based on disclosed facts cannot be false.’ But unlike defamation, ‘false light invasion of privacy offers redress not merely for the publication of matters that are provably false, but also for those that, although true, are selectively publicized in a manner creating a false impression.’ Tannous pleads that ‘defendants have chosen to cherry-pick’ from among his tweets to paint him as anti-Semitic, rather than as a critic of ‘Israel state policy.’ I must accept this allegation as true at this stage. Thus, even if the tweets used in the article are ‘literally true’ and the opinions not ‘provably false,’ the defendant organization could still be liable if it ‘cherry-picked’ those tweets and presented them ‘in a fashion which renders the publication susceptible to inferences casting one in a false light’ – in this case, the false light of anti-Semitism. I therefore conclude that plaintiff has plausibly pled a claim for false light.”
The plaintiff is represented by Mark Daniel Schwartz in Bryn Mawr.
The defendants are represented by Marjorie M. Obod and Patrick J. Hamlet of Dilworth Paxson, plus Gabriella Maria Scott and Stephen Aaron Miller of Cozen O’Connor, all in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01115
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com