A former accounting professor who sued Elon University for alleged wrongful termination earlier this year has lost both rounds in his legal fight: his first suit was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on May 27; and his second suit, filed in Alamance County superior court on June 10, was dismissed this week by a visiting superior court judge.
Wake County visiting superior court judge Sean Cole entered an order on Monday, August 10, concluding from the evidence and arguments last week that Elon University’s motion to dismiss should be granted.
Elon University had countered that the former professor’s allegations failed to state a “viable claim” on which relief could be granted, based on a motion to dismiss that the university filed last month in superior court.
The former accounting professor, Ray A. Knight of Winston-Salem, sued Elon University for allegedly denying him tenure – the equivalent of termination in academia – after he filed a whistleblower complaint about another professor who he claimed had helped students cheat on their IRS certification exams.
Knight claimed in both suits that he had been removed from his role as director of Elon University’s Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program after he reported the alleged “cheating scandal” to higher-ups in the accounting department and to senior administrators at Elon University. He claimed to have been denied tenure “with illegal animus” in 2023, two years after he filed a whistleblower complaint.
As a tenure-track professor in the Love School of Business at Elon University, Knight published approximately 20 scholarly articles, taught core tax courses, and “nearly completed a book on tax fraud,” according to the suit that he originally filed in federal court. His teaching, scholarship, and leadership of the IRS VITA program were praised by the dean of the business school, Raghu Tadepalli, in 2020 for a midpoint review (evaluation) of his eligibility for tenure.
Knight claimed that his alleged wrongful termination was part of a broader pattern of age-based discrimination at Elon University, claiming that, in April 2019, Elon University president Dr. Connie Book had made “age-based remarks to full professors,” based on his federal suit.
In 2021, Knight claims to have learned that an accounting professor and then-faculty advisor for the VITA program had improperly provided students with answers to IRS VITA exams. Those online, open-book exams are mandatory for university accounting students and cover topics such as ethics/standards of conduct, intake processes, and tax law, according to the IRS, which develops and administers the VITA exams.
Knight claimed in his federal suit to have reported the alleged misconduct in September 2021 to the chairman of Elon’s accounting department, who removed him from his role as director of the VITA program and replaced him with a newly-hired faculty member, an action that Knight characterized as “immediate retaliation.”
The dean of Elon’s business school later issued a negative recommendation, and Knight was denied tenure in March 2023, Knight alleged in both his federal and subsequent Alamance County suits.
Breach of contract
Under his claim of alleged breach of contract, Knight contended that Elon University breached its own “obligations” regarding tenure by failing to follow required procedures and by allowing predecision determinations and impermissible considerations to influence the tenure outcome,” according to the subsequent suit that Knight filed in Alamance County superior court on June 10.
In a corrected motion to dismiss that Elon University filed in superior court on July 15, the defendant countered that the faculty handbook which Knight’s lawsuit cited “explicitly states that it, and the policies within it, do not constitute a contract. Specifically, the [handbook] provides that “The information in this document serves as a guide…It is not a contract but rather a statement of practices followed at Elon Univeristy.”
The faculty handbook outlines the multi-step process to be followed for each year of the tenure review process, based on copies of the procedures that the university included with its motion to dismiss Knight’s suit.
For his part, Knight argued in his opposition to the university’s motion to dismiss that “North Carolina courts apply a totality-of-circumstances test” for breach of contract claims, considering: “specific promises”; “incorporation by reference”; “course of dealing”; and “reasonable reliance,” according to the suit he subsequently filed in Alamance County superior court.
Promissory estoppel
Under his second claim of alleged promissory estoppel, Knight contended that it would be improper to dismiss his suit at this stage because he’d “alleged clear promises, reasonable reliance, and detriment.”
The university countered that promissory estoppel – a legal theory under which a defendant can be held liable for breaking a promise, when another party “reasonably relied” upon the promise – isn’t recognized as a cause of action under North Carolina law, according to Elon University’s motion for dismissal.
Constructive discharge
The university further argued that constructive discharge – Knight’s third alleged cause of action – also is not recognized as a cause of action under state law.
Knight claimed to have been the target of constructive discharge through “objectively intolerable working conditions” that included removal from the VITA directorship one week after he’d reported the alleged misconduct; contemporaneous statements that he would not receive tenure; actual denial of tenure; and continuing adverse treatment.
Whistleblower retaliation
Under a fourth alleged cause of retaliation for filing a whistleblower complaint about the supposed cheating on IRS certification exams, Knight contended that he had been engaged in protected activity (filing a whistleblower complaint), arguing, “North Carolina recognizes wrongful discharge and retaliation claims grounded in public policy, including policies embodied in criminal statutes,” according to his brief opposing the university’s motion to dismiss.
Elon countered that there is no provision for retaliation or whistleblower within state law under the circumstances that Knight had alleged.
Defamation
Under a fifth a final count of defamation, Knight claimed that Elon University made and published false statements to third parties during the tenure review process, which he alleged had resulted in harm, according to the brief that the plaintiff filed in superior court on July 21, asking a judge to deny the university’s motion to dismiss.
In his subsequent suit, Knight had been seeking a judgment against Elon University for an unspecified amount of compensatory damages; recovery of lost wages and benefits; “consequential and emotional distress damages”; punitive damages if supported by evidence; and recovery of his court costs and attorneys’ fees.
A licensed attorney since 1981, Knight represented himself for both his federal suit and state court suit against the university. The court file lists his address as 3124 Allerton Lake Drive, Winston-Salem.
Elon University was represented by the Womble Bond Dickinson law firm in Raleigh and Greensboro.
Cole directed each party to pay its own court costs and attorneys’ fees, based on the order that he signed this week. He heard arguments in the case in Alamance County superior court on Monday, August 3.
