Professor Laura Beny of the University of Michigan Law School has escalated her fight against alleged racial and gender discrimination, filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. Her case challenges the long-standing ‘honest belief’ rule, a legal principle that has previously protected university officials, and aims to reinstate jury review in disciplinary matters.
Initially filed in 2022, Beny’s lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2024, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in July. Undeterred, Beny’s legal team is now arguing that the core issue is a constitutional one, with significant consequences for employee protections and the accountability of educational institutions nationwide.
A Landmark Case: Testing the Boundaries of Faculty Discipline
Beny, who joined the Law School in 2003, was a trailblazer, being only the second African American woman to achieve a tenure-track position there. According to The Michigan Daily, her disciplinary troubles began in 2018 with a notice for ‘disruptive conduct,’ followed by another for ‘verbal abuse’ in 2019. A third notice in March 2022 cited class abandonment and inappropriate communication with colleagues as reasons for action.
University officials have consistently defended their actions, asserting that Beny had ‘abandoned the classroom’ and engaged in ‘retaliation against students.’ However, crucial documents reveal that Beny was officially granted medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act on April 15, 2022. This leave encompassed the very period during which she informed students she could not teach. Her legal team contends that this medical leave approval directly contradicts the university’s stated justifications, hinting that the disciplinary measures were a pretext for discrimination, as reported by The Michigan Daily.
The ‘Honest Belief’ Rule: A Critical Examination
A key component of this legal battle is the ‘honest belief’ rule. This judicial doctrine shields employers from discrimination lawsuits if they genuinely believe in the non-discriminatory reason provided for their disciplinary actions. The Sixth Circuit Court previously sided with the University of Michigan, citing this principle and stating there was no evidence that decision-makers knew about Beny’s medical leave when imposing sanctions.
Beny’s legal team, however, argues in their Supreme Court petition that this rule has morphed into a ‘systematic denial of constitutional protections.’ They contend it empowers judges to unilaterally decide on credibility and motive, bypassing crucial jury deliberation. Lead counsel, Amos Jones, emphasized to The Michigan Daily that the case fundamentally questions ‘the erosion of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial,’ insisting that any disputed questions of intent should be put before a jury, not settled as a matter of law.
Unveiling Conflicts of Interest and Contested Motives
Furthermore, the petition presents new evidence challenging the impartiality of the University’s disciplinary process. Richard Painter, a former Chief White House Ethics Lawyer, provided expert testimony alleging that former Dean West’s previous communications with Beny contained ‘sexually suggestive’ remarks. This, Painter argues, created a clear conflict of interest that should have immediately disqualified West from any further involvement in the disciplinary proceedings, as detailed by The Michigan Daily.
Specifically, Painter’s assessment within the petition highlights emails where West allegedly commented on Beny’s appearance and made personal remarks about her family. These exchanges, the petition claims, cast significant doubt on the credibility of West’s ‘honest belief’ regarding the disciplinary justifications.
A Singular Stand
Records examined by The Michigan Daily indicate that Professor Beny was the only tenured faculty member disciplined by Dean West during his entire ten-year term. In an email to the publication, Beny explained her decision to persist with teaching while pursuing the case as a matter of principle. She firmly believes she was ‘singled out for disparate treatment’ after she lodged internal complaints with the University’s Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX Office.
Amos Jones, her counsel, stated that the petition extends beyond rectifying individual injustice. It seeks to confront what he identifies as a systemic issue within higher education. ‘The University of Michigan might consider this case closed in the courts,’ Jones remarked, ‘but the broader question of accountability in higher education is far from resolved.’