Law school professor wins emotional distress lawsuit against Whittier Law School

Katie Jenkins-Moses's picture

Issue 12, Katie Jenkins-Moses, law school, lawsuit, News, News - By Katie Jenkins-Moses on Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 04:33

On Thursday Nov. 3, Whittier Law School’s Distinguished Senior Professor of Law Nelson Rose was awarded $350,000 in damages for emotional distress against Whittier College, which was upheld by the Second District Court of Appeals. Rose initially sued Whittier College for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescissions of a buyout agreement in August 2008.

According to Rose, Whittier College allegedly persuaded him to accept a tenure buyout equal to one year’s salary in 2007. This deal was offered to 20 other full-time faculty members. Allegedly, if professors did not accept the buyout, they would have their teaching loads doubled and salaries frozen.

Rose took the buyout offer. According to the appeals court, professors who did not accept the buyout did not have to increase their course load and received a three percent raise.

This all surrounded a decision made by the American BAR Association in 2005 to place Whittier Law School on accreditation probation due to their low BAR passage rates. In an effort to help this situation, Whittier Law School attempted to reduce the number of faculty members. This is when the alleged buyout was offered to the professors.

In 2010 the court ruled in favor of Rose and ordered his reinstatement along with $350,000 in damages. According to The National Law Journal, the appeals court wrote that “the trial court found that a confidential relationship existed between Rose and Whittier, and that Whittier’s administrators failed to disclose to Rose information material of his decision to relinquish his tenure at the Law School.” 

As is appellate practice, the Appeals court justices did not independently weigh the evidence and were bound to accept the trial court’s findings as to these issues. The College is appealing this result, as it is contrary to California law and against the weight of the evidence.

“The College remains firm in its conviction that the officers of the College involved in this matter acted properly and the trial court judge simply erred,” college officials said. “As this case is ongoing, no comment can be given at this time.”