Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya v. James B. Murray, et al.
Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya (“Bhattacharya”)
sues numerous officials at the University of Virginia and the University of
Virginia School of Medicine (collectively, “UVa”), arising from his suspension
from medical school; he claims the school suspended him in retaliation for his
protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
UVa moves for summary judgment as to the suspension from school. It concedes that plaintiff engaged in protected First Amendment activity in asking questions during an academic panel.
Section A: For Defendants, argue in support of the motion.
Section B: For Plaintiff, argue in opposition to the motion.
The legal and factual record is after the jump.
Controlling Law
The First Amendment right to free speech includes the right to be free from government retaliation for engaging in protected speech. To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must prove that he engaged in protected First Amendment activity, the defendant took some adverse action against him, and there was a causal relationship between the plaintiff’s protected activity and the defendants’ conduct, meaning retaliation for the plaintiff’s protected conduct as the but-for cause of the adverse action. Constantine v. George Mason Univ. (4th Cir. 2005).
A plaintiff suffers adverse action if the defendant’s allegedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights; that is, the defendant's conduct would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected expression for fear of being retaliated against. Plaintiff must show more than a de minimis inconvenience. Davison v. Rose (4th Cir. 2021).
The First Amendment reflects a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on public officials and employees. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
Speech containing serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific merit lies at the core of the First Amendment’s protections. Miller v. California (1973).
Professional programs, such as medical schools, may establish and maintain requirements of “professionalism” consistent with the learned profession for which students are training and into which they plan to enter. While universities may not use professionalism to mask discrimination against protected speech, courts owe some degree of deference—not absolute abandonment of scrutiny—to schools’ professional and educational judgment. Schools may not use “professionalism” as a pretext for discrimination because of a student's speech. Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. School of Medicine (4th Cir. 2012).
Summary Judgment Record
Statement of Undisputed Facts:
1. Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya began medical at UVa in fall 2016.
2. On October 25, 2018, UVa’s chapter of the American Medical Women’s Association sponsored a faculty panel on microaggressions. Faculty panelists described their views and positions on microaggressions (unintentional or unconscious insults or statements reflecting prejudice and stereotypes against marginalized groups). Bhattacharya, then a second-year student, took the microphone during the Q&A session; he asked four or five questions in a row, challenging the speakers and their research as anecdotal, contradictory, and nonspecific. Bhattacharya never raised his voice or attacked anyone personally. Defendants agree his questions and comments are protected by the First Amendment. Panelists included Dr. Nora Kern, a member of the UVa faculty. Dr. Christine Peterson, Assistant Dean for Medical Education, attended the the program.
3. Numerous students who attended the faculty panel posted comments to an online law school portal, labeling Bhattacharya’s tone and behavior as “extremely disrespectful, unprofessional, and condescending” and “very disrespectful of the panelists in his tone and manner of questioning.”
4. Bhattacharya suffered a series of mental-health related issues during his time at UVa. In January 2017, he underwent a voluntary two-week hospitalization. He was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, with current Manic Episode. He took a voluntary leave of absence beginning in February 2017. He returned to school in August 2018.
5. Bhattacharya was hospitalized pursuant to an emergency mental-health custody order on November 14, 2018; he remained in the hospital until November 16, 2018.
6. On November 18, 2018, police responded to a domestic incident at Bhattacharya apartment between Bhattacharya and his mother. On November 19, 2018, pursuant to Bhattacharya’s mother’s petition, a magistrate issued an emergency custody order for Bhattacharya. He was hospitalized until November 26, 2018.
7. On November 19, 2018, Bhattacharya’s girlfriend sought and received a protective order against Bhattacharya.
8. Following Bhattacharya’s released from the hospital, Dr R.J. Canterbury, Associate Dean for Academics, urged Dr. Jim Tucker, Chair of the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee (“ASAC”) to convene a hearing about suspending Bhattacharya.
8. On November 28, 2018, UVa’s Academic
Standards and Achievement Committee (“ASAC”) convened a hearing. Bhattacharya
attended the hearing. He began the hearing by photographing each committee
member, asked each to identify themselves, and audio-recorded the hearing. The
chair began the hearing by announcing that “We are having this discussion
because we are concerned about your professionalism and professional behavior
in medical school, as reflected in a prior Letter of Concern." During the hearing, Bhattacharya paced around the room and
interrupted school officials to ask them questions and to explain his behavior at the microaggressions panel.
9. The Committee voted to suspend Bhattacharya and notified him of the suspension by letter dated November 29, 2018.
Email exchange between Dean Christine Peterson, Asst. Dean for Medical Education, to Dr. Nora Kern
Dr. Kern to Dean Peterson, Oct. 26, 2018
Dear Christine:
Who was that extremely unprofessional student during the AMWA panel? He was rude and combative in his questions, challenging the quality and validity Bev Adams’ work and saying it was contradictory. His tone and aggressiveness were troubling. I wonder how he will do in rotations with that sort of attitude. Is this something that ASAC should address?
Nora
Dean Peterson to Dr. Kern, Oct. 26, 2018
Dear Nora:
In response to your email: I believe the student is Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya. You can submit a Professionalism Concern Card to ASAC listing your concerns. Although the card has no punitive effect, it can prompt an ASAC inquiry.
Christine
Letter of Concern from ASAC to Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya, Nov. 1, 2018
The Academic Standards and Achievement Committee has received notice of concern about your behavior at a recent AMWA panel. It was thought to be unnecessarily antagonistic and disrespectful. Certainly, people may have different opinions on various issues but they need to express them in appropriate ways.
It is always important in medicine to show mutual respect to all colleagues, other staff, and patients and their families. We would suggest that you consider getting counseling in order to work on your skills of being able to express yourself appropriately.
Dr. Jim Tucker, Chair, Academic Standards and Achievement Committee
Email from Dr. R.J. Canterbury, Associate Dean for Academics to Dr. Jim Tucker, Nov. 27, 2018
Dear Jim:
Can you call an emergency meeting of the ASAC to discuss a student, Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya, who has been hospitalized for mania twice in the past two weeks. He was released yesterday. He is still manic and has been intimidating various administrators. John Densmore has all the details. I have used my emergency authority to tell him he may not return to the learning environment until he has been cleared by the counseling center. But that authority has time limits, as you know. He insists on returning to class today, which I have forbidden. He still appears quite manic.
Letter from ASAC to Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya, Nov. 29, 2018
The Academic Standards and Achievement
Committee has determined that your aggressive and inappropriate interactions in
multiple situations, including during a speaker’s lecture and during the
committee meeting yesterday, constitute a violation of the School of Medicine’s
Technical Standards. This was already indicated by the committee’s previous
issuance of a Letter of Concern, dated November 1, 2018.
Those Standards, in relevant part and as related to professionalism, state that each student is responsible for” Demonstrating self-awareness and self-analysis of one’s emotional state and reactions; modulating affect under adverse and stressful conditions and fatigue; establishing effective working relationships with faculty, other professionals, and students in a variety of environments; and communicating in a non-judgmental way with persons whose beliefs and understandings differ from one’s own.
Based on our finding of a violation of these
Standards, you are suspended from the School of Medicine for one year effective
on the date of this letter. You may appeal this decision, pursuant to School of Medicine regulations.
Affidavit of Kieran Ravi Bhattacharya: (relevant parts only):
1. During the panel on microaggressions, I asked a series of challenging questions of the panelists. I questioned whether only members of marginalized groups could be victims of microaggressions, challenged an answer that contradicted an earlier slide; and questioned whether their definitions of marginalized groups are too non-specific. I also suggested that one panelist’s research was anecdotal rather than based on serious analysis of meaningful data.
2. During the panel, I never raised my voice or yelled. I did not disupt the panel. I never interrupted anyone, never prevented a panelist from answering questions, and never prevented a fellow student from answer questions.
3. I did push back against the panelists’ answers because I believed they were pushing and attempting to defend a concept—microaggressions—that has questionable empirical or scientific bases. I questioned the scientific validity of those attempted defenses.
* * *
11. I never raised my voice during the ASAC hearing. I did ask the members to identify themselves and I did record the hearing.
12. They asked numerous questions about the panel on microaggressions. I answered all questions, including explaining my views around the inadequacy of the science around microaggressions and the scientific invalidity of the panelists’ presentations. I reiterated to the ASAC members that I never raised my voice or interrupted.
* * *
21. My suspension was based on my protected expressive activity at the microaggressions panel and for no other reason.
22. I did not appeal my suspension, as I believed it was futile.
