Jason Jorjani v. New Jersey Institute of Technology, et al.

Newark, New Jersey, employment law lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a civil rights job discrimination theory.



NJIT hired Jason Jorjani in 2015 to teach philosophy,

and twice renewed his contract in 2016 and 2017. During this

time, Jorjani "formed the Alt Right Corporation,” to "widen

the message of his philosophy, which he describes as an

affirmation of the Indo-European Tradition” and "the idea that

European cultures are intimately related to those of Greater

Iran and the Persianate World, Hindu India and the Buddhist

East and are the sources the [sic] world's greatest scientific,

artistic and spiritual developments.” He spoke at

conferences and published an essay titled "Against Perennial

Philosophy” on "AltRight.com,” a website he helped found. In

the essay, he argued that "human racial equality” is a "left-

wing myth” and that a great "Promethean” "mentality” rests on

a "genetic basis” which "Asians, Arabs, Africans, and

other non-Aryan peoples” lack. App. 662, 668. The essay also

argued that, through "genetic engineering” and eugenic

"embryo selection,” Iran could produce great philosophers by

"restor[ing] the pre-Arab and pre-Mongol genetic character of

the majority of the Iranian population within only one or two

generations.” App. 669. Jorjani did not discuss these outside

associations with his students or colleagues, nor did he disclose

them as required by NJIT policy.



Then, in 2017, a person posing as a graduate student

contacted Jorjani to discuss "how the Left persecutes and

silences Right wing thought in academia.” App. 104–05. But

he was working with a group called "Hope Not Hate,” whose

goal is to "deconstruct[]” individuals it deems "fascist” or

"extremist.” App. 104. The two met at a pub where the

undercover operative recorded their conversations, at first with4

Jorjani's consent. But later, apparently assuming the recording

had stopped, Jorjani commented on matters concerning race,

immigration, and politics. The meeting became a piece

published by the New York Times featuring a video excerpt

from Jorjani's remarks at a conference characterizing

"liberalism, democracy, and universal human rights” as "ill-

conceived and bankrupt sociopolitical ideologies,”1 before

cutting to the secretly recorded portion of Jorjani's

conversation where he predicts "[w]e will have a Europe, in

2050, where the banknotes have Adolf Hitler, Napoleon

Bonaparte, Alexander the Great. And Hitler will be seen like

that: like Napoleon, like Alexander, not like some weird

monster, who is unique in his own category.” App. 407–08.

The day after the Times piece was published, NJIT's

President emailed all faculty and staff, denouncing Jorjani's

statements as "antithetical” to NJIT's "core values.” App. 412.2

NJIT's Dean of the College of Science and Liberal Arts sent a

separate email echoing those sentiments. In the following days,

NJIT received some unverified number of calls and, at most,

fifty emails expressing concern about Jorjani's recorded

comments and his membership on the faculty. Faculty chimed

in too, highlighting the content of Jorjani's "Against Perennial

Philosophy” essay.



Six days after the New York Times posted the article,

NJIT sent a letter to Jorjani placing him on paid leave,

explaining the article 1) "caused significant disruption at the

university” that NJIT believed would "continue to expand,”

and 2) revealed "association with organizations” that Jorjani

did not disclose on his outside activity form, despite prior

direction to fully update the form the preceding Spring. App.

542. The letter advised Jorjani that NJIT planned to investigate

whether he had violated university policies or State ethics

requirements.



Fallout continued with NJIT's Department of Biology

penning a statement published in the student newspaper

asserting "Jorjani's beliefs, as revealed by his remarks, cannot

help but produce a discriminatory and intimidating educational

environment for [NJIT's] diverse student body.” App. 708. The

Faculty Senate followed suit, releasing an "Official Faculty

Senate Statement,” explaining that "NJIT is a university that

embraces diversity and sees that diversity as a source of

strength. The NJIT Faculty Senate finds racist pronouncements

made by University Lecturer Jason Reza Jorjani to be morally

repugnant. Hate and bigotry have no place on the NJIT

campus.” App. 710–11. The Department of History also joined

the fray, demanding Jorjani's termination and asserting his

"published beliefs create a hostile learning environment for

students of color in particular.”



As this occurred, NJIT retained a law firm to investigate

whether Jorjani had disclosed his outside activities, or engaged

in practices "that resulted in a conflict of interest with his

responsibilities toward NJIT.” App. 117. The firm's report

concluded he did, finding Jorjani: 1) "violated the New Jersey

ethics code by failing to disclose that he was a founder,

director, and shareholder of the AltRight Corporation”; 2)

"violated NJIT faculty policy by cancelling 13 classes in the

Spring of 2017,” some of which "were not due to illness as he

suggested” and resulted in negative student evaluations; 3)

erroneously claimed the "video excerpts in the NYT Op-Ed

were misleadingly edited to paint [him] in a false light”; and 4)

"exhibited a clear pattern of non-responsiveness from the time

he started working at NJIT” by neglecting his email inbox.

App. 49. NJIT then elected not to renew Jorjani's contract.

Jorjani sued NJIT, alleging retaliation in violation of the

First Amendment. During discovery, Jorjani argued that by

disclosing an unprivileged factual report and including its

General Counsel in discussions about his contract, NJIT

waived its attorney-client privilege over all communications

and work product related to his non-renewal. Finding no

waiver, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's

ruling denying Jorjani's request for privileged

communications.

The District Court later granted NJIT’s motion for

summary judgment, concluding that Jorjani’s speech was not

protected by the First Amendment because “Defendants’

interest in mitigating the disruption caused by Plaintiff’s

speech . . . outweighs Plaintiff’s interest in its expression.”

App. 63.4 Seeing error in that conclusion, we will vacate and

remand.