Attorney wants Denver jury to decide Churchill's fate

Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News

Published July 26, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Local News

Ward Churchill’s attorney is seeking a more sympathetic jury by taking the case of the fired University of Colorado professor to Denver District Court rather than before a federal judge.

Federal judges tend to defer to the personnel decisions of university governing boards, especially if they followed due process as set forth in their own operating procedures, according to legal experts.

But a local jury is less predictable.

"There’s no way to know — some will, some won’t (defer to the governing board)," said Denver attorney Martha Tierney, who practices civil rights law.

Churchill and his lawyer, David Lane, have had success in front of a Denver jury. Lane won acquittals for eight activists, including Churchill, who were accused of disrupting a Columbus Day Parade in 2004.

Lane sued today in Denver District Court, one day after the CU regents voted 8-1 to fire Churchill for academic misconduct, including plagiarism and fabricating both historical events and sources cited in his essays.

The suit claims the academic misconduct charges are a pretext to punish Churchill for his controversial political views. Those views are protected by the U.S. Constitution, the suit claims.

"We stand behind the regents’ decision and will fight this in court," said CU Vice President Ken McConnellogue.

Lane said Tuesday, even before the regents’ vote, that he would sue in Denver district court, rather than federal court, to get a more sympathetic jury.

A federal jury would be drawn from a pool that includes rural areas where Churchill’s views would not be popular, Lane said.

Many experts had expected him to bring the case before a federal judge, rather than a jury.

Denver attorney Scott Robinson said Lane may be overestimating the acceptability of Churchill’s views even among a more tolerant Denver jury pool.

"It will come out — what did he say?" Robinson said. That would include his comments comparing the 9/11 victims to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi who helped carry out the Holocaust.

"He has the distinct disadvantage of offending almost everyone with the remarks he uttered," Robinson said.

In his suit, Ward Churchill claims:

He has been hounded by the media and politicians since January 2005, when his controversial essay about the 9/11 attacks was widely circulated.

In response to the "outcry," CU pored over his published works in search of "some excuse for terminating his employment."

That process violates his rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

CU should pay his legal bills.

Pension intact

Former CU professor Ward Churchill will get a state pension of about $70,000 if he chooses to take his retirement benefits.

Churchill is covered by the Public Employees’ Retirement Association. A PERA spokeswoman declined to comment on Churchill’s case, but a chart on the agency’s Web site indicates that a person 60 years of age with 29 years of state employment, which roughly describes Churchill, is eligible for 72.5 percent of the average of his or her three highest-earning years. Churchill now earns more than $96,000 per year.

He could be eligible for a higher pension if he paid extra into the system, a process called "buying years of service."

PERA accounts are made up of contributions from employees and employers. PERA is not part of the University of Colorado and benefits are not affected by the CU regents’ decision to fire Churchill.

Under CU rules, Churchill also is entitled to one year’s salary as severance pay.

Still to be determined is whether he gets that as a lump sum or in regular paychecks. Also being decided is whether he keeps his health insurance, CU Vice President Ken McConnelogue said.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News