Book Title
Business Law with UCC Applications 14th Edition

978-0077733735 Chapter 24 Part Six Case Study

April 10, 2019
Part Six Case Study
Renken v. Gregory
Questions for Analysis
1. The case of Renken v. Gregory clearly supports the core legal principle of stare decisis. The
2. There are actually very few differences. The similarities include that, in both cases, the plaintiff is
a public emplpoyee; in both cases the plaintiff speaks out against the misconduct of the people in power
3. Now this question is very interesting. One might logically (even emotionally) expect the court to
rely on something official like a job description, or a list of contractual duties, a job posting, or a
collective bargaining agreement. Inexplicably, the court refuses to do this and, in fact, expressly rejects
that notion. Instead, the court relies on a vague concept it refers to as the duties “actually performed”
by the professor. So, if the cleaning crew never empties a professors waste basket or vacuums the floor
in his or her office, and the professor performs those tasks every morning, then it would seem that the
“actual performance” of such janitorial duties makes the professor at least a part time janitor, right? The
4. After considering this “evidence,” the court decides that the complaints made by the professor
involving the irregularities in the grant operation, were made in line with his public duties and,
therefore, were not protected speech, giving university and college adminstrators in state run
5. Public workers are employed by the government and private workers are employed in the
6. The profession of college professor seems not to matter in determining the elimination of free
speech rights. High school teachers, middle school teachers, elementary school teachers,
8. Academic freedom is a right that protects the free speech of educators when they speak or write
9. Given the fate suffered by Ceballos who filed such a case, then, while the plaintiff could have
END of Part SIX End Case