Radolf v. University of Connecticut
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
364 F. Supp. 2d 204 (2005)
Facts
Dr. Justin Radolf (plaintiff) was a tenured professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) and School of Medicine. Radolf established and served as the director of the UCHC Center for Microbial Pathogenesis. The UCHC discovered that Radolf had falsified data on certain grant proposals submitted to both the federal government and private organizations. The University of Connecticut (defendant) placed Radolf on academic probation for three years and began a review of all of Radolf’s grant proposals and contracts for academic and research integrity. The United States Department of Health and Human Services’s Federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) also began investigating Radolf for misconduct in his research, which resulted in Radolf admitting wrongdoing and accepting five years of academic probation for all activities involving the United States Public Health Service. During this time, Radolf continued to teach as a tenured professor at the UCHC. However, Radolf was subsequently denied the opportunity to participate in the formation of a grant proposal submitted to the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and the research funded by the grant. Radolf filed a lawsuit alleging that his First Amendment right to academic freedom to participate in the DOD grant and research was violated.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kravitz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
