CLEVELAND, Ohio – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a Cleveland State University law professor and the former assistant dean of the school, who claimed former Dean Craig Boise retaliated against them because the faculty formed a union.

Professor Sheldon Gelman and his wife, former assistant dean Jean Lifter, contended in the lawsuit in U.S. District Court that they lost income and their constitutional rights were violated by Boise’s actions following Gelman’s union activities.

Lifter served in the non-faculty position for 37 years at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law until she was terminated on June 30, 2014.

Gelman, a tenured professor from 1980 until his retirement in May 2015, led the effort in 2012 that resulted in about 37 faculty members affiliating with the American Association of University Professors.

Boise, now dean of Syracuse University’s law school, mentioned a “disconnect” between himself and the faculty, according to the Nov. 12, 2012, minutes of a faculty meeting, wrote Judge Patricia Gaughan in her ruling. In that meeting Boise said he sensed the faculty was becoming more divided and he pointed to the unionization effort as an example.

An issue in the lawsuit was whether Lifter’s termination, the only one in the law school as it faced budget issues in 2014, was due to her husband’s efforts in forming a union.

Gaughan wrote in her ruling that evidence showed Lifter’s position was eliminated because the law school had to cut $735,000 from its budget in 2014 because of an enrollment decline.

Gelman had also claimed Boise awarded him a merit raise in 2013 that was much less than he was entitled to because of his union activities. Gaughan wrote that Boise had clearly explained to faculty how he determined merit raises by dividing up an available pool of money.

See the ruling below or click here if on a mobile device.

“The Court finds no issue of fact as to whether Gelman’s union activities were a motivating factor behind Lifter’s termination or whether Boise’s decision to terminate her would have been the same absent Gelman’s conduct,,” Gaughan wrote.

“Furthermore, defendants present ample evidence that Boise actually provided positive benefits to faculty members who were active in the union organizing campaign, including Gelman,” she wrote. “This casts doubt on plaintiffs’ assertion that Boise’s motivations were to punish Lifter for Gelman’s activities.”

The ruling was the second setback for the couple. Lifter and Gelman filed unfair labor practice charges with the State Employment Relations Board over Lifter’s termination.

In its February 2015 dismissal of the charges SERB concluded that the investigation revealed no probable cause that the law school discriminated and retaliated against Lifter for her husband’s union activity, the court ruling said. The board also concluded the law school did not discriminate against Gelman.