Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals panel hears challenge to University of Washington firing over outside‑work rules
Summary
An appellate panel heard arguments in Stamatoyanopoulos v. University of Washington, where the petitioner says the university improperly terminated a tenured professor by changing and misapplying outside‑work policies and denying a requested five‑member hearing panel; the university defended its process and application of Executive Order 57.
An appellate panel heard arguments in Stamatoyanopoulos v. University of Washington, in which petitioner counsel Cali Castillo asked the court to reverse the university's decision to terminate a tenured professor, arguing procedural and legal errors.
Castillo told the panel the university “improperly terminated Dr. John Stamatoyanopoulos based on changing policies and in disregard of its own policies and procedures,” and said the university violated the Administrative Procedure Act, denied due process by refusing his request for a five‑member hearing panel and lacked substantial evidence to support termination.
The court questioned whether a time limit on requesting additional panel members was reasonable. Castillo said the professor requested a five‑member panel nearly seven months before the adjudicative hearing and that the university’s deadline and subsequent switching among officials deprived him of the right created by the faculty code.
Mary Peterson, counsel for the University of Washington, responded that the university provided ample process and notice. Peterson said pre‑hearing work began immediately after the panel was appointed, that the petitioner offered no explanation for delaying his request, and that the university had a legitimate interest in preventing gamesmanship in panel selection.
Petitioner's counsel focused on the three‑part Mathews due‑process balancing test, arguing tenure is a protected interest and a larger panel would reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation. The judges and counsel also discussed assessing due process by looking at the entire administrative path — investigation, hearing, presidential review and judicial appeal — rather than panel size alone.
Petitioner also argued the university misapplied Executive Order 57 (EO 57) and GIM 10, asserting the university changed how the rules were applied to Dr. Stamatoyanopoulos during the proceedings. University counsel said EO 57 has been applied to nonprofit work and pointed to the paperwork and exceptions that distinguish nonprofit and for‑profit activities.
On the factual record, University counsel told the court that Altius — the outside entity at issue — was formed with funding from GlaxoSmithKline under a 10‑year collaboration agreement and that the arrangement (which Peterson said involved a $95,000,000 collaboration agreement) showed a deeper involvement with a commercial enterprise. Peterson argued the university suffered harm: the professor’s university research lab effectively closed in March 2016 and staff moved to Altius.
In rebuttal, Castillo emphasized the narrowness of the panel’s actual finding, arguing it identified an impact on student researchers and employees but that the record lacked direct testimony from affected students or staff to support the broader harms the university described. After rebuttal, the court submitted the case.
The hearing primarily turned on two questions: whether the university provided constitutionally sufficient process when it declined the late request for a five‑member panel, and whether the university correctly applied EO 57 and related policies to the professor’s outside work. The court did not issue a decision at the hearing; the case was submitted for decision.
