The group is asking for a ruling declaring that Munson, a professor of health promotion and human development, illegally used his classroom for political advocacy, which is barred for state employees."
The group "Be Fair" could also use the following federal law as well to sue the the professor.
U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)
, monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."
We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.
I'm not a lawyer.This is for a civil suit?How would they determine damages?Could they go for the teacher and the school?
I think that would have to be under federal law, and I don't think federal law precludes the good professor from this sort of activism.
I don't think smoking is a substantive "right, privilege, or immunity" from the federal Constiutional law standpoint. Under the Slaughterhouse cases from the 1880's, which are still good law, the only federal privileges and immunities that exist are those integral to national citizenship, e.g. the right to vote in a Congressional election, the right to travel unhindered to the District of Columbia, etc.