Typically as a professor you can fund your own research with grant money. That’s within the scope of the job.
But the job is only 9 months, so during the extra 3 months you’re free to engage in employment that is separate from your job duties. Such engagements can be things like contracting or in this case, serving as an expert witness. In this capacity, you might say “my qualifications are that I’m prof C from university Y” to establish your credentials.
However, you can’t say you’re from University Y without the University’s permission (in many cases). It looks like what’s happened here is that the Uni is revoking their permission to use their name, which is their right.
That said, the professor can still serve as an expert witness. They just won’t be as “credentialed” in front of the jury, which may make them less desirable as an expert witness or serve to discredit him.
That should not be their right. It's unconscionable that an employer should be permitted to bar an employee from making a factual statement on the record about their employment.
There’s a line between factual statements and what is effectively marketing.
I’d you had a freelancer side hustle going on and your website was “I-work-at-google-so-you-know-I’m-good-at-my-job.com” and all of your messaging was geared around “hire an expert level google employee”, is this marketing or a factual statement about employment?
The professor is leveraging the reputation of the institution to augment their own in the eyes of the jury, and they're being paid a handsome fee for doing so. This fee won't be paid to the institution at all. Any organization on the planet has standing to sue you if you use their name for your own profit, whether you are affiliated with them or not. Maybe that's unconscionable, but I'd be far more concerned if that weren't the case; where anyone could use anyone else's name and not be liable for fraud, impersonation, or defamation.
You apppear to be missing or obscuring basic facts. "I am employed as a university professor at <X>" should never be a forbidden statement wherein it is (a) not fraud (b) not impersonation and (c) not defamation.
Well the thing you're missing there is also (d) a for-profit enterprise while under employment. Please point out any employer who would allow you to go around using their name to make money on the side. Does your employer allow this?
Perhaps. But the way juries are conditioned to gauge expertise is by using the brand as a proxy. That’s why “Vanderbilt” professor can make $200k giving expert testimony, whereas professors at no-name schools aren’t even asked the time of day. If prosecutors want expert testimony in encumbered by brand dynamics, they are free to ask anyone. But they ask for the brand-names because they have more weight in the eyes of jurors.
No, the employer is forbidding you from using their name to turn a profit on your off time. What's nuts about that? Isn't it any organization's prerogative to maintain control of their brand, and their employees' use of that brand in the public sphere?
If you have problems with an employee stating "I work for x" then the only reasonable recourse should be to let them go. How can you police stating a fact to that degree?
You frame this as "stating a fact" but it's actually "running a side business". Just because it is a fact, doesn't make the side business any less relevant. An employee is free to say "I work at X". They are not free to use the fact that they work at X to make money.
> How can you police stating a fact to that degree?
In the course of your employment anywhere, your employer is free to prevent you from making all kinds of statements of fact. If you do make them against their will, they are free to sue you for causes of action such as breach of contract.
But the job is only 9 months, so during the extra 3 months you’re free to engage in employment that is separate from your job duties. Such engagements can be things like contracting or in this case, serving as an expert witness. In this capacity, you might say “my qualifications are that I’m prof C from university Y” to establish your credentials.
However, you can’t say you’re from University Y without the University’s permission (in many cases). It looks like what’s happened here is that the Uni is revoking their permission to use their name, which is their right.
That said, the professor can still serve as an expert witness. They just won’t be as “credentialed” in front of the jury, which may make them less desirable as an expert witness or serve to discredit him.