A. Morrie Craig

A Benton County judge has ordered Oregon State University to halt termination proceedings against a longtime professor accused of sexual harassment and bullying.

The order signed late Tuesday by Judge Matthew Donohue arrives days before the university's trustees were set to hear A. Morrie Craig's last-resort appeal to save his job. Donohue previously ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to review Craig's firing.

The court case is perhaps the first-of-its-kind in Oregon's new era of independently-operated public universities. Donohue's decision to take the case could pave a new avenue for people to challenge Oregon universities in court.

Oregon State must now turn over its records in the case so that the court can consider whether or not Craig's firing was appropriate.

"Both of us, the university and I, are in uncharted waters," said Dan Armstrong, an Albany attorney who represents Craig.

Oregon State President Ed Ray fired Craig on Oct. 30, acting on the recommendation of a faculty committee that held a two-day hearing into the allegations against the professor. Craig, 74, teaches toxicology courses and gained tenure in 1982.

Steve Clark, an Oregon State spokesman, said the university would comply with the court orders, adding that the school still had not received copies of them as of midday Wednesday.

Clark said the university is not aware of any prior court orders that have stayed the university's employment processes.

The court's about-face centers on the question of jurisdiction.

Craig petitioned the Benton County Circuit Court on Nov. 6 for a "writ of review" of his firing. Writs of review typically challenge decisions made by cities and counties, not state agencies.

Challenges of state actions often land at the Oregon Court of Appeals, not the circuit court system. Writs of review are considered a swifter process.

Donohue initially concluded that Oregon State University was a state agency and denied Craig's petition. But Armstrong, Craig's attorney, wrote a letter to the judge Tuesday asking him to reconsider. The attorney pointed to 2015 law that said public universities with their own boards are not state agencies.

All of Oregon's public universities now have their own boards. The Legislature began to grant them autonomy from a central statewide board in 2013.

"The question is, 'Where do these universities fit now?'" said C. Robert Steringer, a Portland attorney who represents public institutions in legal matters.

If Craig's writ of review case continues to move forward, other circuit courts may follow in its footsteps. Eventually, the Oregon Court of Appeals or the Oregon Supreme Court may weigh in on whether circuit courts indeed have jurisdiction, said Portland attorney Michael Rose.

"It's not precedent, but it certainly is the beginning of a potential new approach," Rose said.

Rose represented a Portland State student who challenged his expulsion, a case heard by the Court of Appeals.

To be considered under Oregon's writ of review laws rather than by the Court of Appeals, people must show that a lower quasi-judicial body -- such as a local zoning board -- appears to have improperly reached a decision.

Craig's petition contends that Oregon State fits that description. He says the university did not follow procedure, made a finding that wasn't supported by evidence and, ultimately, came to an unconstitutional conclusion.

As one example, Craig points to the university's sweeping redaction of records, which blocked him from evaluating the evidence for himself. The court petition includes several pages of email messages that the university turned over; large passages are concealed by large black boxes labeled "Privileged."

Craig also argues that the university's general counsel played an outsized role in the faculty hearing by advising the four professors who were on committee, as well as writing both the charges and findings against him.

If Craig's assertions are true, then the process that led to his firing may not have been fair, said Craig Robson, a California attorney who has studied higher-education employment law.

Robson, who worked for two years in the general counsel's office at Texas A&M University, said the general counsel ordinarily acts on behalf of the administration and presents its case. The faculty committee hearing the case is supposed to decide it impartially, without direct influence from the general counsel.

What little is known about the allegations against Craig comes from his court filings. The heavily redacted emails that he submitted in support of his petition provide an incomplete timeline of the case.

One email says that a student's allegations of "inappropriate behavior" reached the president's office at least as long ago as February 2016, nearly two years before President Ray decided to fire Craig.

The professor sent two emails in fall 2016 saying the dean of the veterinary school asked him to attend training by the university's Equal Opportunity and Access office, which investigated the February 2016 allegations.

It's unclear whether he completed the training and what revived the university's investigation.

However, an email sent in April by the veterinary school dean refers to an anonymous complaint submitted by a second-year veterinary student in Craig's toxicology course.

The faculty committee recommended his firing Oct. 23.

He remains on campus pending the outcome of the civil court case, his attorney said.

-- Molly Young