Facts

Dr. Dennis Song worked as a volunteer assistant clinical professor for the University of California San Francisco (University), School of Dentistry's Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (DOMS) supervising dental students. On April 2017, Dr. Song sent Dr. Bast an email seeking to take a sabbatical on July 1st, 2017 along with reiterating concerns he had with the students' education and patient care in DOMS. Dr. Bast forwarded Dr. Song's concerns to Dr. Perkins and Dean John Featherstone. However, Dr. Bast also understood Dr. Song's email to convey that Dr. Song did not wish to volunteer in DOMS for the next academic year. At a later date in April 2017, Dr. Bast sent an email to Dean Featherstone detailing a list of students' complaints about Dr. Song. A month later, Dr. Bast sent Dr. Song a notice that Dr. Song's volunteer faculty appointment would not be renewed. At some point, Dr. Song took an interest in working for the Pediatric Dentistry Division but because of human resources costs and the incident with the students, Dr. Shiboski did not offer him an appointment in Pediatrics. Song brought an action against the University, Dr. Bast, and Dean Featherstone alleging that defendants retaliated against him for failing to renew his appointment for the 2017-2018 academic year after he engaged in activity protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants moved for summary judgment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants terminated his volunteer appointment in retaliation for raising complaints about DOMS. Plaintiff contended that defendant Bast prevented him from obtaining an appointment in pediatrics. Plaintiff contended that defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by retaliating against him and breached their duty of care to him by terminating his employment. In his opposition, plaintiff argued that the record showed there was a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether the non-renewal of his appointment was motivated by his protected speech. Plaintiff further contended that the sequence of events proved that his request for leave was a convenient way for defendant Dr. Bast to disguise his retaliatory intent. Plaintiff contended that forwarding his concerns gave rise to a retaliatory motive. Plaintiff contended his non-renewal was pretextual because Dr. Bast knew he wanted to keep teaching despite his notice to take leave. Plaintiff contended that the alleged student complaints were another pretext to hide defendants' retaliatory intent. Plaintiff contended that his statements to students were protected speech.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions. Defendants contended that most of the evidence plaintiff presented in his opposition brief lacked foundation. Defendants contended that plaintiff had not refused the University's showing that it would have terminated him even absent his alleged protected speech. Defendants contended that volunteer professors, like plaintiff, are ineligible for personal leave and plaintiff was properly terminated based on plaintiff's leave notice. Defendants contended that it complied with the University's policy in choosing not to renew plaintiff's appointment. Defendants contended plaintiff had not presented any evidence that defendants responded to his concerns negatively. Defendants contended that plaintiff's communications expressed an intent not to teach for the 2017-2018 academic year. Defendants contended that the students' complaints about plaintiff gave rise to his termination. Defendant contended that plaintiff's statements to students were not protected speech. Defendants contended that Dr. Bast had no authority as to whether plaintiff could be placed in pediatrics. Defendants contended that because plaintiff had not shown retaliatory conduct, plaintiff's claims fail.

Result

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.