A former adjunct professor at the University of Arizona has filed a federal lawsuit against the institution, claiming he was terminated for his off-campus advocacy related to parental rights and school gender policies. The university maintains the decision was based on budget cuts, but the professor, Daniel Grossenbach, alleges his First Amendment rights were violated.
Grossenbach, who taught ethics for three years, founded a group called Save Catalina Foothills School District (SaveCFSD) to challenge local school district practices. His lawsuit, filed with the support of the Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel, seeks reinstatement and damages, positioning this case at the center of the national debate over free speech for public employees.
Key Takeaways
- Daniel Grossenbach, a former adjunct professor, is suing the University of Arizona for wrongful termination.
- He alleges he was fired for his public criticism of a local school district's gender identity and mental health policies.
- The university cited budget cuts as the reason for his dismissal, a claim Grossenbach disputes with evidence of new job postings.
- The lawsuit claims violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeks to challenge the university's speech policies.
Allegations of Retaliation for Advocacy
The core of Daniel Grossenbach's lawsuit is the claim that his termination was a direct result of his public advocacy. He founded SaveCFSD to address policies in his children's school district that he believed infringed on parental rights. The group raised concerns about the district allegedly withholding students' mental health information from parents and using gender identity surveys without consent.
According to the lawsuit, SaveCFSD also highlighted the district's practice of maintaining lists of students who requested to use different names and pronouns, all without parental notification. Grossenbach spoke about these issues at school board meetings, which he says he did in his capacity as a private citizen.
Shortly before his contract was not renewed, Grossenbach learned that anonymous complaints had been sent to the university. These complaints reportedly described his advocacy group as an "anti-gay hate group" and accused him of spreading "misinformation."
The University's Official Position
The University of Arizona initially informed Grossenbach that his adjunct position was being eliminated to accommodate new full-time faculty members with doctoral degrees. In a statement to the press, a university spokesperson said, "We will not comment on this pending legal matter."
However, Grossenbach claims this explanation is inconsistent with the university's subsequent actions. He discovered that his former department later posted new job openings for adjunct professors, casting doubt on the budget-cut narrative.
Public Records Dispute
A significant part of the legal complaint involves a public records request. Grossenbach alleges that the university violated Arizona's public records law by delaying the release of documents related to his termination for 239 days. The heavily redacted documents he eventually received suggested that university officials had discussed the anonymous complaints prior to his dismissal.
The Legal and Constitutional Claims
Grossenbach's legal team from Liberty Counsel argues that the university's actions constitute unlawful retaliation for protected speech. The lawsuit alleges violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
"Protecting freedom of speech is in some capacity exactly what I was trying to teach my students in the undergraduate setting. It’s an irony that the very thing that I was teaching was something lost on the administration," Grossenbach stated in an interview.
The lawsuit also includes a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. Grossenbach, who is Christian, has stated that his advocacy is motivated by his religious beliefs regarding human sexuality.
Daniel Schmid, an attorney with Liberty Counsel, emphasized the constitutional principles at stake. "This type of silencing is harmful," Schmid said. "The First Amendment makes it clear." He argued that Grossenbach took clear steps to separate his personal advocacy from his role at the university.
Broader Implications for University Policies
If Grossenbach's lawsuit is successful, it could have far-reaching consequences for the University of Arizona. The legal challenge specifically targets the university's Nondiscriminatory and Anti-Harassment Policy and its Statement of Professional Conduct. A ruling in his favor could force the university to revise these policies to provide clearer protections for employees' off-campus speech.
Personal Repercussions and Community Response
Beyond the loss of his teaching position, Grossenbach reports that he and his family have endured significant harassment. He described incidents of strangers appearing at his home and his wife's place of employment. He also noted that a photograph of his house was posted on social media, which he perceived as an intimidation tactic.
During his advocacy at school board meetings, Grossenbach said he consistently made it clear that he was speaking as a private citizen and a parent, not as a representative of the University of Arizona. He maintains that his remarks were always delivered without "hate, slander, or violence."
A Professor's Stance
Grossenbach explained that his Christian faith was a driving factor in forming SaveCFSD. He stated his belief that "departing from God’s natural male and female design of human sexuality is a sin." This religious conviction, his lawyers argue, is also protected speech.
The lawsuit details the financial and professional harm Grossenbach has suffered. It states the university's actions have "inflicted irreparable damage to Professor Grossenbach’s professional career and reputation, ended his academic pursuit of a doctorate degree, decreased his earning potential, and reduced his income."
The case is now proceeding through the legal system, where the court will weigh the university's employment decisions against a professor's right to engage in public debate on contentious social issues.
