UW's $600K Settlement: HR Lessons on Speech and Internal Investigations

For HR and employee relations leaders, this is a costly reminder that internal investigations triggered by offense rather than conduct can themselves become retaliation evidence. The University of Washington's response—removing the syllabus, a months-long harassment probe, and a competing section—cost it $600,000 after the Ninth Circuit ruled the discipline violated the professor's speech rights.

The University of Washington has paid $600,000 to Stuart Reges, a teaching professor in computer science and engineering, closing a First Amendment retaliation dispute that produced a significant Ninth Circuit ruling on faculty speech and institutional authority. The payment, reported on September 4, 2026, follows the December 19, 2025 appellate decision that found the university violated Reges's free speech rights by removing a satirical land acknowledgment from his syllabus and then investigating and reprimanding him for it.

“

The University of Washington's response—removing the syllabus, a months-long harassment probe, and a competing section—cost it $600,000 after the Ninth Circuit ruled the discipline violated the professor's speech rights.

The underlying controversy began in January 2022, when Reges included a modified land acknowledgment in his course syllabus. The university's original land acknowledgment practice was suggested, not required, leaving instructors discretion. Reges's version stated: "I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington." That statement rejected the premises of the standard acknowledgment and mocked its framing. University officials deemed the language inappropriate and offensive, removed it from the syllabus, opened a months-long harassment investigation, and created a competing class section so students could avoid his course. Each of these responses later contributed to the court's conclusion that the university had retaliated against protected speech.

In July 2022, Reges, backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, sued the university, alleging viewpoint discrimination and violation of his First Amendment rights. After the litigation progressed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in his favor on December 19, 2025. The majority opinion stated that the university's actions constituted retaliation for protected speech and rejected the notion that student discomfort with a professor's views is grounds for discipline. The court's language — that "debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education" — supplies a concise constitutional anchor for academic speech cases.

From a legal standpoint, the case reinforces that public universities cannot enforce even well-intentioned institutional messaging in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner. An optional land acknowledgment cannot be converted into a de facto speech code. The university argued that its acknowledgments recognize historical ties of Native peoples to university land and are not personal viewpoint expressions. However, because the practice was not mandatory and Reges's syllabus language was parody, the Ninth Circuit treated the enforcement response as retaliation for speech on a matter of public concern. The adverse actions were not limited to removing a syllabus line: the harassment investigation and the creation of a competing section were concrete employment and educational consequences. For public employers, this sits within the broader doctrine that a pattern of investigations and remedial measures can establish a First Amendment retaliation claim even when no discharge or pay cut occurs. For higher education specifically, it narrows the range of acceptable administrative responses to controversial faculty speech.

The $600,000 settlement is notable less for its dollar amount than for what it signals about litigation risk. The settlement covers a single faculty member, but the underlying rule applies across campus. Public universities now face a clear template: a professor makes a controversial but arguably protected statement; administrators investigate; advocacy groups such as FIRE support litigation; appellate courts scrutinize the university's response for viewpoint neutrality. The university did not secure a defense verdict at the appellate stage, so the payment should be understood as a negotiated exit after an adverse ruling rather than a voluntary early settlement. For other institutions, the case provides a strong incentive to review whether DEI-related statements and land acknowledgment policies are truly optional, whether administrators are trained to distinguish offense from harassment, and whether investigations are triggered by content rather than conduct.