Iowa State University is back in the courts again, this time to appeal a decision regarding their procedures in the disciplining of a professor.

The university is appealing to the Iowa Supreme court a recent Story County District Court decision involving the College of Education’s actions in placing Michael Simonson, a professor of curriculum and instruction, on paid administrative leave.

The original decision was critical of Iowa State’s handling of the issue.

Assistant Attorney General Cecilia Ibson, who is representing Iowa State in the matter, said that a notice of intent to appeal has been filed, and that “we intend to get something on file this week.” Although Ibson could not discuss much of the case, she did say that “the initial filing is going to deal with United States Supreme Court cases that deal with people being placed on leave.”

Simonson and his lawyer Stephen Terrill were unavailable for comment.

The sanction in question barred Simonson, who has been a professor at Iowa State for more than 22 years, from teaching classes at ISU, having contact with graduate students and research assistants, attending any conferences, and administering research projects.

Simonson was also locked out of his office.

The suspension came about as a result of pending sexual harassment complaints which were going to be filed by several students against Simonson.

Simonson claimed that he was not allowed due process before being placed on leave. This included being placed on leave before a formal complaint was actually filed, and not being allowed a hearing to plead his case.

District Court Judge Timothy Finn agreed with Simonson, citing the university’s “woefully inadequate” processes which failed to meet “even the most minimal due process standards.”

In his decision, Finn wrote that the University had “taken away virtually every aspect of Simonson’s position, duties, responsibilities, reputation, and prestige,” and that he was “entitled to a full-blown hearing.”

Finn ruled that Simonson was to be reinstated to his original position until he could be given a hearing by the university. He was not to have any contact with those students who have filed complaints against him, however.

Finn was also critical of the university’s “defective” policies in general, saying that they “seem designed more to wear down a complainant than to quickly resolve the dispute.”

Besides criticizing the university’s practices, Finn found fault with several individual members of the university’s judicial team.

One of the persons criticized by Finn was Paul Tanaka, head attorney for University Legal Services. Besides being one of the lawyers for Iowa State, Tanaka was also a fact witness in the case, an action which Finn considered to be “generally inappropriate.”

Finn referred Tanaka to the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, a set of ethical considerations and disciplinary rules by which lawyers abide.

This was essentially a warning to Tanaka to watch his behavior, a source from the Iowa State Supreme Court of Professional Ethics for Lawyers said, because he was close to stepping over the line of what was appropriate.

Despite repeated attempts, Tanaka was unavailable for comment.

Ibson was “shocked” that her colleague’s ethics would be questioned. “The role that Mr. Tanaka played was not unusual, and, in my opinion, not at all inappropriate,” she said.

This issue is just the beginning of what could be a long court battle, Ibson said, as the complaints of sexual harassment have not yet been discussed.

“Ultimately, the issue is going to be sexual harassment, and we have not even gotten to that yet,” Ibson said.