On March 31, a federal judge dismissed claims against a Jewish former Georgetown University student named in a $10 million lawsuit after speaking out against the hiring of an administrator who posted antisemitic remarks on social media.
The plaintiff, Aneesa Johnson, was hired on Oct. 2, 2023, as the assistant director of academic and faculty affairs at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, an “at-will” employer.
Rachel Wolff, a Jewish dual-degree student at Georgetown’s foreign service and law schools, researched Johnson after she was hired and found a profile of her online that included screenshots of antisemitic posts Johnson had made in 2015.
The posts said “Ever since going to [Northwestern] I have a deep seeded [sic] hate for Zio bitches. They bring out the worst in me,” followed up by, “You know why I call them Zio bitches, because they’re dogs.”
Johnson also reposted, “When the whole world hates you bc you a thief and grow up looking like a shaytan [devil or demon in Arabic] #GrowingUpIsraeli” which accompanied a photo of an Orthodox Jewish man scowling.
Alarmed by what she saw, Wolff took to Twitter herself, including the screenshots of Johnson’s posts and added, “Not to be outdone by Harvard, Georgetown @georgetownsfs just hired this antisemite to be the ‘primary point of contact for all MSFS Students on everything academic.’ As an SFS student, I’d rather fail my master’s program than speak to someone who says this about my people.”
The post subsequently went viral.
After an internal investigation, Georgetown terminated Jonhson’s employment 56 days after she was hired.
Johnson alleged wrongful termination against Georgetown in a lawsuit filed in April 2024, later adding Wolff to the suit under a tortious interference claim, alleging Wolff’s actions wrongfully and intentionally interfered with Johnson’s contractual relationships.
In an 82-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper dismissed the wrongful termination suit against Georgetown. Cooper also upheld Wolff’s First Amendment right to condemn the university’s actions and dismissed the tortious interference claim stating, “the risk of such suits would undoubtedly chill campus speech.”
“Wolff’s Tweets do not qualify as wrongful or improper interference with Johnson’s employment contract. The claim must be dismissed,” wrote Cooper.
It is also clearly stated in the opinion and Johnson’s termination letter that she did not deny making the posts at issue. “Wolff’s Tweets included screenshots of posts that Johnson does not deny making, leaving social media users free to ‘judge … for themselves’ the accuracy of Wolff’s accusation.”
The suit also added eight additional defendants. Wolff was represented pro bono by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.
“We at the Brandeis Center, look at this [as] a major decision and a very important victory for every student who has feared speaking out against antisemitism on campus,” David Dince, a senior counsel at the Brandeis Center, told Washington Jewish Week. “In this situation, a student raised her voice about hateful content posted by a university administrator and then found that she was being sued for expressing her thoughts about it. In this decision, the court made it clear that that kind of retaliation has no place in our legal system.”
The claims were dismissed because they failed to satisfy at least two basic elements of the cause of action; first, Johnson did not allege any actual agreement between parties to conspire, nor does the complaint hint at a possible conspiracy; and second, Johnson failed to allege that the defendants were motivated by class-based ill will.
“The Brandeis Center [is] completely aware of the fact that there are a growing number of frivolous cases of this type, in which those who call attention to Jew hatred are being sued or subjected to internal university disciplinary proceedings. We are handling several such matters like that right now and are certainly aware of many such matters that are out there,” Dince said.
“The goal of the plaintiffs in those cases is to intimidate and silence criticism of their own hate speech. I think it is an extremely important case in sending a message to students, to faculty and to others who want to speak up about antisemitism when they are confronted by it.”
Cooper added in his conclusion, “We should all cherish free speech yet recognize that speech is not free. It has consequences. It reflects who we are. And especially if conveyed over the Internet, it can follow us forever. If our words are caustic and hurtful, they may not only injure others, but also sully our own reputations and cost us valuable opportunities and benefits, including in employment. As elementary as it may seem, we should think twice about what we say and how we say it.”
Well written piece Mia, especially because you clearly explained the reasons for the case being dismissed. But what wasn’t addressed was Georgetown’s seeming lack of due diligence BEFORE they hired their assistant director of academic and faculty affairs. If one of their own grad students easily found the offending posts, what does that day about the institution’s vetting process?!
Keep up the good reporting.