Last month, Harvard and I each filed motions for summary judgment—legal filings asking the court to decide all or part of the case based on undisputed facts, without a trial.
Harvard argues that it should prevail entirely and the court should dismiss the case. I argue that I should prevail on key portions—specifically, my breach of contract claim—while my other claims (breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and promissory estoppel) should be resolved at trial.
The filings
From the court docket, with hyperlinks and OCR for reader convenience:
- Harvard’s Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) and Statement of Facts (with my objections), my Opposition, Harvard’s Reply.
- My Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (MPSJ) and Statement of Facts (with Harvard’s objections), Harvard’s Opposition, my Reply.
- 1241 pages of evidence (excluding table of contents and document separators) including excerpts from 11 deposition transcripts, 163 exhibits, five sets of interrogatory responses, affidavits from me and Dean Nohria, and various other documents.
- My Motion for Sanctions in Spoliation of Evidence (submitted based on the court’s instruction in an August hearing) arguing that Harvard failed to preserve key evidence—indeed, intentionally deleted it. Accompanying materials: my evidence ISO spoliation motion, Harvard’s Opposition and evidence, and my Reply with additional evidence.
Other ways to explore the documents:
- My video explainer highlights key evidence and arguments.
- This NotebookLM is an AI model trained on litigation documents. Try asking “What does Edelman say the FRB did wrong?” or “Did the FRB provide Edelman with the evidence gathered?” As always, AI can make mistakes. But NotebookLM provides citations, so it’s easy to check the underlying documents.
Reflections
Let me remark briefly on context. Until 2014, I was more than on track as a junior faculty member at HBS—excellent research, teaching at least good enough. (I became excellent at teaching later.) That year, two media blow-ups caused the world to get angry at me, and caused many at HBS to question whether I could stay. But the nature of those blow-ups wasn’t grounds to fire me. Ultimately HBS created a new Faculty Review Board, operating under a new “P&P” policy, and HBS twice reviewed me under this procedure. This case is about whether HBS did what the P&P promised—whether the P&P rules are legally binding, whether HBS complied, and what should be done if it did not. I say the rules bind and HBS did not comply. With the benefit of discovery, I say I can prove it. Hence my motion for summary judgment.
Six posts highlight key themes in the filings:
- The FRB P&P is definitely a contract, but Harvard says it isn’t.
- The FRB withheld “the evidence gathered” and mischaracterized evidence.
- The FRB opened without an allegation in 2017, expanded its scope improperly and at the last minute, and by its own admission did not reach conclusions.
- The FRB acted in bad faith, and predetermined the outcome.
- HBS senior faculty destroyed evidence, though they had a duty to preserve it.
- My candidacy would have succeeded, and I would have been promoted, had it not been for the FRB’s breaches.
Hearing on the summary judgment motions is scheduled for January 14. Stay tuned!