Judge rules Churchill will not get job back

DENVER - Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill's request for reinstatement has been denied in Denver District Court. Front pay has also been deemed inappropriate in the case.

CU fired the controversial ethnic studies professor in 2007 after an exhaustive faculty review found instances of academic misconduct on Churchill's part.

Churchill did not have any comment on Tuesday.

School administrators say the ruling by Judge Larry Naves gives them vindication.

"This is an issue about research misconduct. I said back in 2005 and again in 2006 that Professor Churchill's speech is protected. However, there were numerous allegations of research misconduct that needed to be investigated," CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano said.

"This is a huge win for the University of Colorado because the jury found against the university and the judge throwing the verdict out now can only be considered a major judicial upset," 9NEWS Legal Analyst Scott Robinson said.

But all sides agree that the case's journey through the courts is not over.

"This case will 100 percent be appealed and it's anyone's guess how it will be resolved in appeal," Robinson said. "This is a groundbreaking decision in an area of law that has not been visited very often in the past."

When asked if there would be an appeal, Churchill's attorney David Lane said in an afternoon press conference, "Absolutely."

"It sends a message to the public, which is: 'Oh jury verdicts, who cares?' You know?" Lane said. "I've said, you know the Constitution is only as strong as those charged with protecting it, and unfortunately it's not being protected."

The next step is the Colorado Court of Appeals, and Churchill and Lane have 45 days to file the appeal.

CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke believes CU will win the appeal.

"[The ruling is] factually strong and it's legally strong. I think that this case could get resolved at the Court of Appeals level and the higher courts could say, 'We have no reason to review it further,'" O'Rourke said.

Immediately following his 2007 dismissal, Churchill and Lane filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court. In that lawsuit, Churchill argued he was illegally fired in retaliation for an essay he penned in 2001 in which he compared victims inside the World Trade Center to an infamous Nazi.

That essay was thrust into the national spotlight in 2005, years after it was written. The political firestorm that erupted had politicians such as then-Governor Bill Owens demanding action. Churchill believed the intense, outside political pressure corrupted the academic environment in such as way it blinded CU's leadership.

In 2005, CU began a process that started looking into allegations of academic misconduct and fraud. In 2007, the CU Board of Regents voted 8-1 for dismissal.

In April, a Denver jury agreed with Churchill's premise that he was illegally fired, but it stopped far short of awarding Churchill a high dollar figure. Instead it awarded Churchill $1.

Last week, Lane and Churchill were back in Judge Naves' courtroom arguing that their legal victory in April was enough for the judge to order reinstatement. Calling CU leaders, "constitutional law violators," Lane told Naves he had essentially no other choice but to reinstate the embattled professor.

O'Rourke argued that the $1 judgement in April should, in essence, speak for itself. O'Rourke suggested that reinstating Churchill would further damage the university's reputation.

Naves' decision vacates the April decision by the jury.

CU President Bruce D. Benson released a statement following Tuesday's ruling:

"We believe the judge appropriately applied the law to recognize the Board of Regents' role as a quasi-judicial body. This ruling recognizes that the regents have to make important and difficult decisions. The threat of litigation should not be used to influence those decisions."

To read the full text of the judge's ruling, click here.