Savage v. Gee, Court Case

Icon of a scroll with lines to indicate written text
Excerpt:

Scott Savage appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants E. Gordon Gee, President of The Ohio State University, in his individual and official capacity; Karen A. Holbrook, former President of the University, in her individual capacity; Nancy K. Campbell, Assistant Vice President of the Office of Human Resources at the University, in her individual and official capacity; T. Glenn Hill, a human resources consultant at the University, in his individual and official capacity; the members of the board of trustees of the University, all in their individual and official capacities; and five University Professors. Savage sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that he was constructively discharged in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights; that the University’s sexual harassment policy is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; and several other constitutional claims. The district court found that Savage had waived his damages claims by previously raising related claims before the Ohio Court of Claims, and that his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were without merit. Savage appeals this decision, arguing that monetary relief is not barred here, and that the district court erred in dismissing his injunctive and declaratory claims. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

Source:

Savage v. Gee. 2012. 665 F. 3d 732. (6th Cir. 2012).

Cite this page:

N/A. 2012. "Savage v. Gee, Court Case." History of Higher Education. https://higheredhistory.gmu.edu/primary-sources/savage-v-gee-court-case/