A federal judge in Detroit ruled on Tuesday that part of a lawsuit alleging the University of Michigan violated employees’ First Amendment rights can move forward.
Eight workers – seven student workers and one full-time employee – filed the lawsuit last May after the university fired them for their alleged conduct at two protests on campus in 2023 and 2024. The university moved to dismiss the lawsuit in August, arguing that the plaintiffs’ conduct wasn’t protected by the First Amendment.
Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III said in his ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims warrant further investigation, as the university’s actions could have violated their protected First Amendment rights.
The plaintiffs also argued that the university violated their due process rights by not providing sufficient opportunity to respond to U of M’s claims before they were terminated. One plaintiff, Zainab Hakim, was a unionized full-time employee and said she did not have a chance to bargain.
And after the university brought additional, internal disciplinary measures against a few of the plaintiffs in July, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging additional First Amendment violations and conspiracy.
All eight plaintiffs are barred from working at the university ever again.
The lawsuit seeks to hold the university accountable for a campaign of repression and retaliation against pro-Palestine protesters, said Liz Jacob, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
“Workers should not be punished for speech that they take outside of work,” she said. “And especially workers speaking in support of Palestinian human rights and in support of divestment should not be punished by their employers.”
The University of Michigan did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for U of M has said it does not comment on personnel matters or current litigation for previous stories.
As part of their motion to dismiss, U of M lawyers submitted police reports detailing the plaintiffs’ alleged conduct at protests in November 2023 and May 2024. But the judge declined to consider them at this stage. Murphy noted that both parties disagree strongly about how to characterize the plaintiffs’ conduct, and that this stage of the process is not the time to “wade into factual disputes,” he wrote.
Michigan Public reviewed police body camera footage cited in police reports for two plaintiffs, Eaman Ali and Zainab Hakim.
U of M’s lawyers also argued that there was no evidence the plaintiffs were still experiencing harm from the firings. But the judge disagreed.
“Defendants did not mention the most obvious alleged harm that led to the [lawsuit]: the University terminated the students’ present employment in addition to barring their future employment,” he wrote.
Most of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims will move forward. One plaintiff, Zaynab Elkolaly, was dismissed from the case for lack of standing. Jacob said she had worked for U of M when she was a student, but had since graduated. The University still sent her a letter informing her that she had been fired.
Murphy also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of conspiracy and due process violations, saying that U of M had provided adequate due process under current law.
Jacob said the legal team is encouraged by the ruling, even though Murphy dismissed some of their claims.
“It was disappointing to see that the due process issues won't move forward,” Jacob said. “But there are still numerous opportunities for us to lift up the First Amendment rights of public employees throughout the rest of this case.”
The case will move into the discovery phase, when both parties will gather evidence and documentation to make their case. This is the time for factual disputes, Jacob said.
“We believe that we have a very strong case,” she said. “And we are really honored to be able to take this case forward for our plaintiffs.”
The University of Michigan holds Michigan Public's broadcast license.
