Professor fired for COVID defiance sues for reinstatement

Listen to this article

An ethics professor is seeking reinstatement after a state college in Duluth fired him in 2022 for refusing to comply with a COVID vaccine mandate and for sending his students an email criticizing the pandemic policy while he was suspended for noncompliance.

In a lawsuit filed April 9 in federal court in Duluth, Russell Stewart, who taught at Lake Superior College (LSC), claims violations of the First and 14th amendments. He is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a Washington-based organization whose stated objective is “to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the administrative state.”

“It is time that courts recognize that government cannot force medical treatments upon people by making it a condition of employment unless there is a rationale, backed up by at least some scientific evidence, beyond the benefit to the individual,” the complaint reads.

Stewart was an ethics and philosophy professor at LSC since 1992. The Duluth college is part of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. Stewart taught critical thinking, environmental ethics, ethics, introduction to philosophy, logic, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy. Stewart achieved unlimited full-time, the equivalent of tenure, a few years after being hired. Stewart had no history of discipline.

In 2021, Gov. Tim Walz issued Policy #1446, requiring state employees to either get the COVID-19 vaccine or do weekly testing. LSC staff who refused would face disciplinary action, which could include discharge.

But Stewart was wary of the vaccine, citing limited testing. He also did not want to test, which, according to the complaint, he viewed as a “humiliating ritual.” Stewart had to choose between compliance and keeping his position; ultimately, he chose not to comply.

Stewart was placed on unpaid leave after a disciplinary hearing. Subsequently, Stewart emailed his students, both letting them know that he would be absent and that he considered the mandate immoral and unlawful.

Stewart claims that he was never told that he could not contact his students. However, he was told a week later that he had violated LSC policy by contacting his students to express his personal political opinions. Stewart wrote in the email that he was “shocked and puzzled” to be prohibited from teaching his classes. He encouraged his students to “pay attention” and “think hard about what you see and hear.” Stewart also expressed that he would “refuse to be coerced into doing something that violates fundamental rights.”

Stewart contracted COVID-19. He recovered, and argued that, due to his natural immunity, he did not need the vaccine. However, LSC did not accept this argument.

In March 2022, Stewart was terminated. LSC cited his noncompliance with the testing or vaccine requirement and the email he sent to students as the reasons for his dismissal, according to the complaint. The employee mandate was rescinded six weeks after Stewart was terminated. However, he was not offered his job back.

Stewart’s lawsuit claims that Policy #1446 violated the 14th Amendment‘s Equal Protection Clause.

“There is no question that Professor Stewart was and remains subject to differential treatment because of his unvaccinated status, as he was and remains terminated from LSC due to his refusal to get the vaccine or submit to a stringent, intrusive testing routine,” the complaint reads. “For no rational reason whatsoever, Policy #1446 treated Minnesota State employees with natural immunity as second-class citizens by depriving them of their jobs unless they consented to intrusions into their bodily autonomy.”

He also claims a violation of the First Amendment due to his punishment for emailing his students. His criticism of the policy, he argues, was a matter of public concern and entitled to constitutional protection.

“A reasonable person would consider it appropriate to explain to his students why he would not be teaching them for an indefinite period of time,” the complaint says. “Moreover, because Professor Stewart was communicating with students about an issue within the ambit of his teaching and scholarship functions as a philosophy professor, he was engaged in a core academic function, and his speech is correspondingly protected under the First Amendment.”

Jenin Younes, litigation counsel at the NCLA, says that the organization was interested in Stewart’s case because the organization seeks a better decision on the application of a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, a smallpox mandate was upheld. However, the organization maintains that lower courts have interpreted Jacobson incorrectly, viewing it as sanctioning any vaccine mandate.

“We think that’s the wrong interpretation of Jacobson,” Younes said.

“We’re trying to get courts to recognize that, especially in the context of the COVID vaccines, which, is now very, very clear don’t stop transmission, it’s clear that natural immunity is as effective at preventing transmission and infection as the vaccine,” Younes said. “We really want courts to recognize that there needs to be a broader public health benefit beyond what the vaccine might give the individual in order for it to be mandated.”

NCLA maintains that there needs to be a balancing of the plaintiff’s liberty interest and the state’s interest. It claims that the balancing test, if applied here, would not justify overriding Stewart’s refusal.

“It is disappointing that, five years after the pandemic, Lake Superior College and the state of Minnesota refuse to recognize the legal and factual folly of its vaccine mandate,” said Greg Dolin, senior litigation counsel at NCLA. “NCLA is proud to stand up for Professor Stewart’s bodily integrity and First Amendment rights.”

Reached for comment, David Kline, vice president of advancement and external relations at Lake Superior College, said, “Lake Superior College is committed to thoroughly investigating all complaints presented to the institution. The college exercises prudence by refraining from commenting on ongoing litigation.”