John Oller Loses His Appeal — Maybe

Addendum: The news is confirmed. Here’s a link to the court’s order: Affirming District Court’s Judgment.

This post is an exception, because when we write about the news, we always rely on traditional sources like newspapers, university press releases, or a few trusted websites like the National Center for Science Education. But no one seems to be following the John Oller litigation. Therefore, our only source of information comes from our vast network of clandestine operatives.

Our last post on this topic was back in September: John Oller Has Filed an Appeal. The next few indented paragraphs provide background information, which most of you can skip:

In late December of 2011, John Oller filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, where he was (and apparently still is) a professor. The complaint alleged that faculty members of the university’s Communicative Disorders Department discriminated against him and marginalized his position because of his belief in creationism, and also because he taught about an alleged connection between autism, mercury and vaccinations.

Oller’s lawyer is John B. Wells, who is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) — the same outfit that was involved in the David Coppedge case. They have a press release (from January 2012) about Wells’ representation of Oller: ADF files suit in federal court to defend professor’s academic freedom.

There was some initial press coverage, and a favorable mention by Ken Ham — see Ken Ham Supports John Oller’s Lawsuit.

There’s more background in what we posted just before the appeal — see John Oller Litigation Update — 02 Sep 2014. Anyway, Oller lost in trial court and then appealed. That was the last thing we heard — until now.

Our clandestine operative informs us that the federal appeals court has just affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Oller’s case. What now? Oller has a few procedural moves left. He could ask for an en banc review of what was probably the decision of a three-judge panel. That means he would request the entire appellate bench for that circuit to take another look at his appeal. Such requests are rarely successful. Failing in that, his only recourse would be to try to convince the US Supreme Court to hear his appeal. We’ll have to wait to see what he does.

Meanwhile, we’ve been told that after his federal suit was dismissed back in September, Oller had filed a state court case against the University, but we’ve never seen any press coverage of that. Our operative informs us that summary judgment motions are pending which may dispose of some issues. They’re a long way from trial. That’s all we know.

And we remind you that we’re relying entirely on our clandestine operative for information. If we didn’t have confidence in that source, we wouldn’t be posting this, but what we’ve reported here hasn’t been confirmed by any of our traditional sources, so you shouldn’t regard this as hard news.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “John Oller Loses His Appeal — Maybe

  1. SC says “he (John Oiler) taught about an alleged connection between autism, mercury and vaccinations.”
    After reviewing some VERY reputable research(Zap Comix) from some TOP people (Alfred E. Newman) it looks like Oiler must have been on to something when the forces of evil betrayed him.
    I quote here one of many works on Oiler’s research from a notable astrology.
    “Feared, disparaged, and despised, the Mercury Retrograde is rapidly becoming the most maligned phenomenon in popular astrology.”
    Oiler’s rights have been abused ..!

  2. Derek Freyberg

    A Google search gives his university web page as the first hit for him (there’s another John Oller in NYC, who beats him); and his LinkedIn page still shows him at ULaLa.

  3. Oller loses his appeal? Funny, I never thought he had any. (Ba-dum-dum!)

  4. That’s it, TomS. Well done! I’ll mention it in the original post.

  5. Reading the decision, apparently Oller thinks that not being given everything he wants is a violation of his constitutional rights.