It’s not over until it’s over but van Heerden will be reinstated under a Temporary Restraining Order issued at 10:10p.m. last night by Federal District Judge James J. Brady, Middle District Louisiana:
Upon consideration of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, the record of this proceeding, the Verification and Affidavit of Irreparable Harm, the law, the evidence adduced, and in order to create a state of affairs in which effective relief can be awarded to either party;
IT IS ORDERED that a Temporary Restraining Order be and is hereby entered directed to the Defendant, Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, prohibiting said Defendant from terminating and/or otherwise terminating Plaintiff’s employment, ordering the immediate and temporary reinstatement of Dr. van Heerden to his position in the faculty ranks of LSU and, further enjoining this Defendant, its agents, employees, and assigns from infringing upon Petitioner’s rights under the United States and Louisiana Constitution and under Federal law, and harassing or retaliating against Petitioner, until further order of this Court at the conclusion of this hearing.
A related Minute Entry on yesterday’s hearing provides background on the TRO:
Counsel for plaintiff moves for the court to issue a temporary restraining order until this matter can be resolves. Parties present argument. The court continues this matter until Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. and orders the parties to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of this hearing.
Once again, the Advocate is on top of the story:
Coastal researcher Ivor van Heerden’s LSU career does not end today, a federal judge ruled Thursday night.
U.S. District Judge James J. Brady issued a temporary restraining order that prohibits the school’s College of Engineering from allowing van Heerden’s one-year contract to expire before a hearing on van Heerden’s complaints is concluded.
Brady said his restraining order will last “until further order of this court at the conclusion of this hearing.”
The judge scheduled resumption of the hearing for Thursday at 9 a.m.
Van Heerden’s reinstatement is temporary – hopefully, the good news will continue when the hearing resumes next week.
I think there was an insurance defense lawyer who commented on this blog saying this would not happen. That’s the danger of predicting the outcome of a contested legal matter.
Think you’re talking about Sydney, Sock, and I quoted him/her in the “My science was good…” post. Also linked the supplemental briefs of both parties and note that one indicated the judge had requested these briefs address a narrow point of law – and gather than point was had van Heerden been “prejudiced” by LSU decision but it will take someone reading with lawyer eyes to be certain.
I do recommend everyone, lawyer or not, read both briefs. IMO, van Heerden’s attorneys did excellent job of taking his case from public controversy to matter of law. Also IMO, the position of LSU sent the University in the opposition direction – in other words from matter of law to what should be a controversial public issue.
If LSU has continually paid van Heerden with state funds as claimed, there is reason to question the way the University uses all appropriated state funds IMO. A faculty member with the expertise of van Heerden is a magnet for research grants that should have offset some portion of his compensation and/or increased his total compensation. Again, just MHO, but he was a gold mine after Katrina and LSU should have taken advantage of the opportunity increase funding to the University instead of making the short-sighted decision to terminate his contract and claim limitations on state funding were the reason.
A case can be made thatLSU was using the termination of van Heerden in attempt to influence the Legislature’s decision on amount of state funds appropriated to the University – one of the oldest tricks in the book. A case can also be made for the University lacking internal control to prevent academic “infractions” comparable to those in athletics that result in sanctions from NCAA.
Bottom line – LSU appears to have been very poor steward of appropriated state funds and more than willing to cut off its nose to spite its face and that of Louisiana’s taxpayers and Legislature.
When Big Brother is a great source of funds, influence, and a major part of the State Engineering Board, it is hard not to be persuaded by that extremely disfunctional body to do as they wish!!
After reading most of Judge Duval’s 156 page decision the COE’s experts seem like they should retire or not testify on thingd they seem to know very little about as indicated between pgs 68 -85 so far!
Perhaps Ivor van Heerden might just want to read 33 CFR 208.10 as it applies to local flood control projects. This could be an eye opener to all concerned with Katrina and the various lawsuits disallowed or allowed!