Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—E.D. Wash.: College faculty member, accused of ‘blatant racial profiling,’ partially advances defamation claim, (Apr 3, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

He had called campus police to report an older, “apparently homeless” woman wandering around a campus building, but the woman was in fact a Black colleague.

A former faculty member at Central Washington University (CWU) can move forward with his defamation claim against a CWU lecturer and member of the faculty senate who had accused the faculty member of engaging in “blatant racial profiling,” ruled a federal district court in Washington. The statement in question was contained in unofficial meeting notes distributed to other faculty members and there was a dispute over whether the common interest privilege applied to the statement. The court did grant summary judgment against the faculty member’s various claims for wrongful termination, retaliation, deprivation of constitutional rights and property, and outrage (Riera v. Central Washington University, No. 1:24-CV-3147-RLP (E.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case was employed in a fixed term, non-tenure track faculty position at CWU. His contract began in September 2023 and was set to expire on June 15, 2024.

Police call. On the morning of April 1, 2024, the faculty member called CWU police to report an older, “apparently homeless” woman wandering around a campus building. The reporting officer confirmed the identity of the woman as a CWU professor.

After this incident, the professor shared her experience with two colleagues. The colleagues immediately filed bias complaints with CWU alleging that the professor—a Black woman—had been the victim of racial profiling.

“Shaken and traumatized.” Later that afternoon, the interim VP of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at CWU met with the faculty member to discuss the incident. According to the faculty member, the interim VP accused him of racial profiling and urged him to prepare an apology. The meeting left him feeling “shaken and traumatized.”

As the faculty member prepared for his afternoon lecture, he overheard students discussing the incident and realized it was only a matter of time before his name became attached to the incident. By the time the lecture was over, the faculty member was “virtually paralyzed with stress and anxiety.”

FMLA leave. The following day, the interim VP requested a follow-up meeting with the faculty member. The faculty member responded the next morning, April 3, explaining that he was experiencing feelings of distress and asked about the purpose of the meeting. The interim VP’s response to the inquiry left the faculty member believing that CWU had no intention of investigating the facts surrounding the incident and that its ongoing objective was “to extract an unfounded admission of wrongdoing and an apology at all costs.”

That same morning, the faculty member requested temporary FMLA leave. The request was granted retroactive to April 1 and took effect midday on April 3. The designation was not immediately known to other faculty members.

Senate meeting. Later that afternoon, a faculty senate meeting was held as part of the ordinary course of business. CWU’s president remarked on the incident, acknowledging the harm caused to the professor and what CWU might do going forward.

Administrative leave. Throughout the week, emails were traded between various CWU faculty discussing how best to handle the situation. Ultimately, the decision was made to place the faculty member on administrative leave. The faculty member was informed that he was being placed on administrative leave on April 5. However, near the end of that day, the assistant attorney general had just learned the faculty member was on FMLA leave and could not be placed on administrative leave.

Unofficial minutes. On April 6, a lecturer at CWU and member of the faculty senate emailed unofficial minutes of the senate meeting to non-tenured faculty. The minutes reiterated the comments made by CWU’s president and referred to the issue with the faculty member as “an incident of blatant racial profiling.”

Admin leave withdrawn. At the beginning of the next week, the faculty member received an email informing him his placement on administrative leave was being withdrawn. His FMLA leave ran through the end of his employment contract. CWU was aware that, prior to the incident, he had accepted a position with Appalachian State University to begin in the fall, and thus it opted not to renew his contract.

Subsequently, the faculty member filed this lawsuit asserting various claims. Those claims fell into three categories: (1) allegations that the defendants took adverse employment action in violation of the faculty member’s contractual rights or his right to liberty/due process or to be free from retaliation; (2) defamation; and (3) outrage. The court addressed each category in turn.

Adverse employment action? First, the faculty member alleged that the defendants took adverse employment action against him when they placed him on administrative leave. However, the court found that these claims rested on a faulty factual premise.

Regardless of whether paid administrative leave can be considered an adverse employment action for the purpose of the various legal claims asserted by the faculty member, the fact remained that he was never actually placed on administrative leave, observed the court. Rather, he had voluntarily placed himself on medical leave before anyone from CWU took any employment action. Because he was already on leave at the time CWU informed him he was being placed on administrative leave, the administrative leave designation had no effect, legal or practical, explained the court. Furthermore, it was rescinded as soon as CWU learned of the error.

Nor was this a case where the faculty member might be able to assert that he was constructively placed on administrative leave, continued the court. There was no indication that he placed himself on medical leave because he feared he was going to be fired or placed on administrative leave.

As to the faculty member’s contention that apart from his right to be free from unlawful interference in continued employment, the defendants had also deprived him of his “liberty interest in his good name, reputation, honor, and integrity” in violation of Section 1983, the court explained that a reputational harm, untied to some sort of tangible loss, such as loss of employment, was insufficient to assert a claim under Section 1983. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against his claims alleging an adverse employment action.

Defamation. Next, the court considered the faculty member’s defamation claims asserted against the CWU president and the faculty senate member who had distributed the unofficial minutes.

With regard to the president, the court found that none of the statements made by him qualified as false statements of fact. The allegedly defamatory comments were that the incident was “unacceptable” and that there needed to be “a stronger emphasis on bias training.” At most, the court found these statements to be ones of opinion and protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

Directing its attention to the unofficial minutes distributed by the faculty senate member, the court found that the portion of those minutes that constituted a republication of the president’s nondefamatory statements did not meet the criteria for defamation.

“Blatant racial profiling.” The remainder of the senate faculty member’s communication could also not be characterized as false, albeit with one exception. Her statement that what had happened “was an incident of blatant racial profiling” could lead a jury to conclude that she had falsely asserted that the person who called the police had engaged in intentional racial profiling, explained the court. Further, given the widely shared public records identifying the caller, a jury could also conclude the statement referred to the faculty member.

Common interest privilege. In response, the defendants argued that regardless of truth or falsity, the senate faculty member’s statement could not be considered defamatory because it fell under the common interest privilege. If the privilege exists, it can be lost in two ways: (1) if the speaker was not acting in the ordinary course of their work; or (2) the speaker’s statement was made with actual malice.

Here, the court found issues of fact regarding whether the statements fell outside the scope of the privilege. Under the first exception, the senate faculty member had no official responsibility for taking notes at faculty meetings and was not required to share her notes with other faculty members.

With regard to the second exception, the senate faculty member was not a witness to the April 1 incident, and no investigation had yet taken place. A jury could therefore conclude that she was reckless in asserting that the call to the CWU police was an act of blatant racial profiling. Accordingly, the CWU president was entitled to summary judgment against the defamation claim, but the senate faculty member was not.

Outrage. Finally, the faculty member asserted a claim for outrage against all defendants. This is a state-law claim involving outrageous conduct resulting in severe emotional distress.

Here, the faculty member’s complaint did not specify the particular factual basis for this claim, instead explaining the claim stemmed from “the manner in which CWU handled his situation.” The court found that he had failed to present a viable claim of outrage.

“The ineffective and short-lived decision to place [the faculty member] on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into allegations of racial bias is not the type of behavior that falls outside the realm of decency,” concluded the court, granting the defendants motion for summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-3147-RLP.

Judge: Pennell, R.

Attorneys: Erica Anne St. Louis (BPE Law Group) for Jose Riera. David L. Force, Office of the Attorney General of Washington, for Ruth Erdman and Central Washington University.

Cases: TortClaims ContractClaims Discharge EmployeeLeave IndividualRights PublicEmployees Retaliation StateLawClaims WashingtonNews GCNNews