Professor Laura Beny of the University of Michigan Law School has taken her battle against the institution to the United States Supreme Court. She’s seeking a review of her case, which alleges racial and gender discrimination in disciplinary actions orchestrated by former Dean Mark West. Filed recently, her petition directly challenges the “honest belief” legal doctrine, a principle that previously protected university officials in court. Beny’s legal team aims to re-establish the critical role of jury oversight in these types of disputes.
Originally filed in 2022, Beny’s lawsuit was dismissed by a US District Court in 2024, a decision later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this past July. Undeterred, Beny and her legal counsel argue that her case transcends a personal grievance, presenting a fundamental constitutional challenge with broad implications for employee rights and the accountability of institutions.
The Heart of the Matter: A Challenge to Faculty Discipline
Professor Beny made history in 2003 as only the second African American woman to achieve a tenure-track position at the Law School. Court documents indicate that disciplinary actions against her commenced in 2018 with a notice for “disruptive conduct,” followed by another in 2019 for “verbal abuse.” A third notice in March 2022 cited class abandonment and improper communication with colleagues.
University officials assert that these measures were entirely justified, pointing to Beny’s alleged “abandonment of the classroom” and “retaliation against students.” However, a crucial detail has emerged: records confirm that on April 15, 2022, Beny received formal approval for medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. This leave covered precisely the period during which she had notified her students that she was unable to teach.
Her legal team contends that this retroactive medical leave approval significantly weakens the University’s justification, implying that the disciplinary actions were merely a pretext for discriminatory motives.
The “Honest Belief” Rule Under Fire
A cornerstone of this legal challenge is the “honest belief” rule, a controversial judicial doctrine that shields employers from discrimination lawsuits if they can demonstrate a sincere, albeit potentially mistaken, belief in the legitimacy of their disciplinary actions. The Sixth Circuit Court previously sided with the University of Michigan, upholding its defense based on this principle, stating there was no evidence that university officials knew about Beny’s medical leave when imposing sanctions.
However, Beny’s lawyers argue in their Supreme Court petition that the “honest belief” rule has morphed into a “systematic denial of constitutional protections.” They claim it improperly allows judges to assess credibility and motive, sidestepping the fundamental right to a jury trial. Lead counsel Amos Jones emphasizes that such critical questions of intent should be deliberated by a jury, not determined as a matter of law by a judge.
Allegations of Conflict of Interest and Questionable Motives
Further complicating matters, the petition introduces fresh evidence that casts doubt on the impartiality of the University’s disciplinary proceedings. Richard Painter, a former Chief White House Ethics Lawyer, has provided expert testimony alleging that former Dean West’s earlier communications with Professor Beny contained “sexually suggestive” remarks. This, Painter argues, constituted a clear conflict of interest that should have precluded West from any involvement in her disciplinary case.
Painter’s detailed assessment, included in the petition, highlights specific emails where West reportedly commented on Beny’s appearance and made personal remarks about her family. These alleged exchanges, the petition contends, significantly undermine the credibility of West’s “honest belief” in the stated reasons for her disciplinary action.
A Singular Case: Beny’s Fight for Justice
Records reveal that Professor Beny was the sole tenured faculty member disciplined by Dean West throughout his ten-year tenure. In a statement, Beny characterized her unwavering decision to continue teaching while pursuing this legal battle as a matter of principle, firmly asserting that she was “singled out for disparate treatment” immediately after lodging internal complaints with the University’s Equity, Civil Rights and Title IX Office.
Her counsel, Amos Jones, emphasized that the petition seeks not only to rectify individual injustice but also to confront a much broader, systemic issue within institutions of higher education. He stated, “The University of Michigan may believe this is resolved in the courts, but the issue of accountability in higher education is far from settled.”