Tufts Tenure Lawsuit Damages: Court Orders University to Pay Nearly $4 Million After “Dead Weight” Emails Surface

A state judge recently rendered a decision in a Middlesex County, Massachusetts, courtroom that will be closely examined in general counsel offices and faculty lounges at universities all over the nation. Judge Hélène Kazanjian ordered Tufts University to pay nearly $4 million in damages after finding that the university had violated the tenure contracts of eight basic science faculty members at the School of Medicine. For years, the case had been developing. However, the April 2 ruling carried the weight of something that had been building for a long time.

In their most basic form, the facts are simple. In 2017 and 2019, Tufts approved a new compensation plan that mandated that 50% of the salaries of tenured basic science faculty come from outside grants. If they didn’t meet those standards, faculty members could lose their full-time status and have their salaries cut by up to 10% annually, which could result in tenure revocation procedures. The plaintiffs, tenured professors who had earned their positions years or decades prior to the implementation of these requirements, contended that the new requirements went against the commitments made when they were granted tenure. For its part, Tufts maintained that the phrase “economic security” in its tenure documents only referred to job security, which meant that the university had fulfilled its duty as long as it allowed faculty to work, regardless of how much it paid them.

In the judge’s exact words, the court deemed that argument “preposterous.” According to Kazanjian, the terms “economic security” and “financial security” have different meanings. A Tufts expert witness was questioned during cross-examination about whether the university could, in theory, pay a tenured faculty member $1 a year without going against its commitments. The witness found it difficult to respond. The struggle was noted by the court. It’s difficult not to interpret that as the exact moment when Tufts’ legal theory broke down due to its own logic.

In an interview with the university’s student newspaper, one of the plaintiffs, Brent Cochran, a professor with forty years of experience in the Department of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology, claimed that his starting salary was lower than that of a first-year postdoctoral researcher. That particular detail explains what academic humiliation looks like in monetary terms, going beyond simply illustrating the financial harm. An individual with forty years of experience and a tenured position at a medical school was paid less than the new hire. In the lawsuit, Tufts maintained that this arrangement was entirely in line with what it had promised.

In addition, the decision addressed something more repugnant than compensation policy. Several of the plaintiffs in the case were older faculty members in Provost Caroline Genco’s department, who were described in internal emails by Kazanjian as “dead weight” and “lingering on.” These emails were used by the judge as proof that the university had been driven, at least partially, to encourage senior faculty members to retire. The court’s conclusion that Tufts had violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing—a legal principle that forbids parties to a contract from using technical compliance to undermine the spirit of the agreement—was influenced by this finding. The university’s case was seriously harmed by Genco’s remarks, which were recorded in an email.

During the trial, Tufts and its administrators further contended that the 2017 plan’s 50% requirement was actually more lenient than previous practice because there had always been an unofficial expectation that faculty pay 60% of their salaries through outside grants. Without hesitation, Kazanjian dismissed that argument, pointing out that it lacked any supporting documentation and was directly at odds with the series of compensation plans Tufts had created over the years. The verdict usually goes poorly when a major component of your defense is a claim that is not supported by your own institutional record.

Observing this case develop gives the impression that its significance extends far beyond the eight plaintiffs who endured a twelve-day trial. Using this decision as precedent, any basic science faculty member at Tufts School of Medicine who was hired prior to 2017 and had their salary or full-time status reduced under the compensation plans may be able to file similar claims. Advocates for academic freedom have been keeping an eye on the case since at least 2023, when it was said to have the potential to define the legal meaning of tenure in American higher education. The economic security finding alone carries a great deal of weight, but the court refrained from finding a violation of academic freedom, concluding that the plaintiffs had not proven their research directions were actually changed, even if funding pressure existed.

It’s unclear if Tufts will file an appeal. A joint proposed judgment must be filed by the parties within sixty days. The university stated that it was “considering the decision” but made no additional recommendations. For the time being, twelve trial days, decades of pent-up animosity, and one sharp court ruling have served as a kind of jury. Tufts spent about $4 million on the solution, and it might cost much more in the future.