FOLLOW US

Harvard University secured a pretrial victory Tuesday in a Massachusetts state court suit filed by a professor who claimed he was unfairly denied tenure following a series of incidents, including a viral dispute over a $4 overcharge at a Chinese restaurant.

In a 38-page summary judgment, Suffolk County Superior Court Justice Kenneth W. Salinger ruled that Benjamin Edelman could not show the faculty review board’s procedures were contractually binding or that any procedural missteps affected the decision by Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria to deny tenure.

Justice Salinger noted that Edelman’s tenure bid was impacted not just by the restaurant incident, but by other public and professional controversies. These included allegations that Edelman caused the stock price of BlinkX to drop after accusing the U.K.-based company of deceptive advertising, filed a class action against American Airlines without notifying Harvard, and failed to disclose work for Microsoft while publishing papers critical of Google.

“Dean Nohria shared the FRB’s concerns about Edelman’s judgment and collegiality and concluded those concerns were sufficient to recommend against tenure,” Justice Salinger wrote. The ruling emphasized that the dean’s decision would likely have been the same regardless of any claimed procedural errors by the faculty review board (FRB).

Edelman’s 2023 lawsuit described the tenure process as a “kangaroo court” and argued the FRB failed to properly weigh outside activities relevant to his professional record. His emails from 2014, published by Boston.com, showed him assertingively requesting refunds at Sichuan Garden for price discrepancies, which became widely publicized online.

The FRB had initially suggested Edelman wait two years and demonstrate that he had learned from these incidents. Later reviews considered his conduct in outside activities over a two-year period. Justice Salinger found no evidence that FRB procedures were enforceable under his employment contract, writing that reasonable faculty would understand tenure decisions to be highly discretionary.

“Even if Edelman could show FRB procedures were contractually binding, which he cannot, he still failed to provide evidence of any breach relevant to tenure review,” the judge added. He also dismissed Edelman’s six claims of procedural violations as “strained, persnickety and incorrect readings” of FRB rules.

Edelman’s attorney, Ruth O’Meara-Costello, told Law360 that the team is considering an appeal. “We are disappointed in the decision and believe it sets a troubling precedent,” she said. “The court’s holding that Harvard need not follow its own policies could concern faculty who rely on promises made by their institutions.”

A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment. Edelman is represented by O’Meara-Costello, David A. Russcol, and Harvey A. Silverglate of Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP. Harvard is represented by Martin F. Murphy and Kaela M. Athay of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP.

The case is Edelman v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, case number 2384CV00395, in Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts.