Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Whittier College committed fraud against a longtime law professor when it persuaded him to accept a buyout in 2006, a California appeals court ruled in affirming a lower court’s judgment against the school. The 2d District Court of Appeal on Nov. 3 upheld an award of $350,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress suffered by the professor, Nelson Rose. But the court threw out $500,000 in punitive damages, explaining in an unpublished opinion that his attorneys neglected to provide evidence regarding Whittier College’s overall financial condition. Rose filed suit against Whittier in 2008 for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from a 2005 decision by the American Bar Association to place Whittier Law School on accreditation probation because of low bar passage rates. Administrators, worried that the ABA’s decision would hurt the school’s ability to draw students, warned that it needed reduce the size of its faculty, according to the decision. The school offered 20 full-time faculty members a tenure buyout equal to one year’s salary. Without the buyouts, professors would see their teaching loads doubled and salaries frozen indefinitely, they said. Rose, who had taught at Whittier for 23 years, accepted the buyout. Several weeks later, the results of the California bar exam were released and the school’s pass rate had shot up by 20 percent. Shortly after Rose’s departure in July 2007, the tenured professors who did not accept the buyout received a 3 percent raise and have not been forced to take on more courses, the appeals court wrote. The trial court ruled in Rose’s favor in June 2010 and in addition to the damages ordered him reinstated. “The trial court found that a confidential relationship existed between Rose and Whittier, and that Whittier’s administrators failed to disclose to Rose information material to his decision to relinquish his tenure at the Law School,” the appeals court wrote. On appeal, Whittier argued that the trial court erred in finding that the information provided by the law school to the faculty about future financial and teaching hardships were “representations of fact” rather than “nonactionable expressions of opinion.” The appeals court disagreed with that argument, as well as Whittier’s argument that it had no responsibility to disclose to Rose the findings of a consultant hired by the school to examine its finances. Attorneys for Rose and Whittier College did not immediately return calls for comment Contact Karen Sloan at [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.