A New Jersey court has vacated a summary judgment order in the case of Alejandro Zaera-Polo against Princeton University. The court's decision, issued on November 6, 2026, affects both the university and its former faculty member, Zaera-Polo, who claims wrongful termination and other grievances. The ruling emphasizes the importance of proper legal procedures in employment disputes.

The case centers around Alejandro Zaera-Polo, who joined Princeton University's School of Architecture in 2009 and served as its dean from 2012 to 2014. His tenure ended after allegations of research misconduct and plagiarism led to his resignation as dean, although he remained on the faculty until his termination in 2021. The dispute escalated when Zaera-Polo refused to advise master's students on their theses, citing concerns over academic freedom. This refusal led to a series of investigations into his conduct and ultimately resulted in his dismissal.

Zaera-Polo's employment was governed by Princeton's Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities, which outline the conditions under which faculty can be dismissed. His refusal to fulfill advising duties was deemed a substantial neglect of duty, leading to a recommendation for his dismissal by Dean Sanjeev Kulkarni. After a review process involving the Committee on Conference and Faculty Appeal (CCFA) and the Board of Trustees, Zaera-Polo's employment was terminated in July 2021.

Following his termination, Zaera-Polo filed a lawsuit against the university and various individuals associated with it, alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, and defamation, among other claims. In May 2023, the trial court dismissed several of his claims, including wrongful termination and defamation, and later granted Princeton's motion for summary judgment on the remaining counts.

However, the court's ruling was challenged by Zaera-Polo, who argued that the summary judgment was granted prematurely and that the court failed to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by New Jersey Rule 1:7-4. This rule mandates that courts must clearly articulate their findings and legal conclusions when making significant rulings.

In its ruling, the appellate court noted, "Our ability to resolve an appeal is dependent on the motion court's compliance with Rule 1:7-4, which states, in pertinent part, 'the court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law.'" The court found that the trial court did not meet this requirement, leading to a lack of clarity about the basis for its decision.

As a result, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court instructed that the motion judge must provide a clear statement of reasons for the ruling, which should include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. This remand allows for a more thorough examination of the issues raised in Zaera-Polo's appeal.

The impact of this ruling could be significant for both Zaera-Polo and Princeton University. For Zaera-Polo, it provides another opportunity to present his case and potentially seek redress for his claims. For Princeton, the ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in employment matters, particularly in cases involving faculty members.

Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court, where the judge will need to comply with the appellate court's directive. This means that the court will have to articulate its reasoning in a manner that allows for meaningful appellate review. The outcome of the case remains uncertain, as the appellate court did not express any opinion on the merits of Zaera-Polo's claims.

As of now, it is unclear whether the case can be appealed further after the remand. The court has not indicated any related cases pending that would impact this matter. The parties will need to prepare for the next steps in the legal process as they navigate the implications of this ruling.