A judge has denied Kansas University's request for dismissal of a lawsuit by a professor who says he didn't get tenure because his colleagues disliked his Republican politics.
KU attorneys argued that Jeffrey Olafsen's suit, filed early this year in District Court, should be thrown out because it wasn't filed on time.
They argued that when Olafsen received a letter in March 2005 denying him tenure, it was a "final agency action" and that he had only 30 days in which to file a lawsuit.
But Olafsen argued KU's final action didn't come until late 2005, when he lost his appeal to a campuswide tenure committee. He filed the suit shortly afterward.
In a ruling this week, Judge Jack Murphy agreed with Olafsen. He wrote that just because KU called the March 2005 letter a final action "does not necessarily make it so."
Olafsen, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy, claims while his tenure was being considered, the department head suggested Olafsen was to blame for research funding cuts because of his support for President Bush. No trial date has been set.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
!!!
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Denial of tenure sucks, and I can understand Dr. (Jeff) Olafsen's anger.
However, the fact remains that Dr. Linda Olafsen, the wife of the denied, was granted tenure in the same department in the same year.
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
But if the department head made that comment, the department head should face sanctioning and removal from that position. I know nothing else about Olafsen's denial of tenure, but IF his claim is true regarding the department head's statement, he will have a leg to stand on. And if true, the department head is a moron.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
If the statement from the head of the department was factual, then it'll have little impact on Olafsen's suit, unless he can show that it prevented a fair assessment of whether or not he deserved tenure. For the matter, even if it wasn't factual, he'll need to show that it influenced the decision.
Regardless, if the evidence shows he deserves tenure, he should get tenure.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
There is more detail regarding Dr. Olafsen's position at http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/apr.... We know very few of the facts in this case. But I'm pretty sure that there is no law against being a moron. And if there is, let me know where to turn myself in, because I've done plenty of moronic things in my life.