University of Michigan student workers fired after pro-Palestinian protests may seek retaliation claims, judge says
A federal judge has allowed First Amendment retaliation claims to move forward against University of Michigan officials in a lawsuit filed by students who say they were fired and banned from future university employment after participating in pro-Palestinian protests.
U.S. District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III issued a ruling Tuesday that allows several claims to proceed while dismissing others. The lawsuit centers on protests that took place in 2023 and 2024 following the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas.
Current and former University of Michigan students sued the university's Board of Regents and several officials, alleging they were retaliated against for their involvement in demonstrations calling for the university to divest from Israel.
These demonstrations happened Nov. 17, 2023 outside of the Alexander G. Ruthven Building, and on May 3, 2024 near the Museum of Art. The university took employment action against the November protesters in August 2024, about nine months after the demonstration, court records show. Disciplinary actions against the May protesters were taken in April 2025. The students were terminated and banned from future employment across the entire university system.
Judge Murphy ruled that the students adequately alleged their protest-related speech was protected under the First Amendment and that their terminations were motivated by that protected speech. The judge also found that the university's initiation of further disciplinary actions after the lawsuit was filed could constitute retaliation.
The ruling allows First Amendment retaliation claims to proceed against some defendants, who the students alleged were directly involved in the employment actions, but claims against five other officials were dismissed because the students did not adequately allege those officials' personal involvement in the alleged violations.
Claims brought by plaintiff Elkolaly were dismissed without prejudice because she had not yet sustained harm. Her alleged injuries were based on future plans and considered speculative, the court found.
The case continues in federal court with the surviving First Amendment claims.
