Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-19-001297
D-1-GN-19-001297
Cause No. ________________ Jessica A. Limon
Plaintiff Professor Shannan Butler (“Professor Butler”), by and through his attorneys, brings
this action for damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendant St. Edward’s University
(“Defendant”). Specifically, Professor Butler brings this action for breach of contract and
defamation against Defendant, and for any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the
facts set forth herein. In support thereof Professor Butler respectfully shows the following:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Professor Butler was a Tenured Associate Professor at St. Edward’s until being fired
without adequate cause or due process in violation of his tenure employment contract.
protections afforded to tenured professors, despite that these protections were incorporated in the
St. Edward’s Faculty Manual and Professor Butler’s employment contract. The University’s
unjustified firing of Professor Butler also violated several independent provisions of its own Faculty
Manual.
3. This failure by St. Edward’s to abide by the ordinary and accepted meaning of
“tenured” status, its own Faculty Manual, and its own adoption of the American Association of
1
University Professors’ 1940 “Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom” (“1940 Statement”)
Edward’s.
Truth, speak freely, and participate in faculty governance without fear of retribution.
organization that since 1915 has played a leading role in shaping the standards and procedures that
maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country’s colleges and universities, “the
climate for academic freedom at St. Edward’s has been deteriorating for a number of years and now
appears to be at its lowest point.” This deterioration has led to a climate described in the Report as
“toxic,” “hostile,” and “characterized, above all else, by fear.” The Report describes a “‘palpable’
8. The Report concluded that St. Edward’s has “an abysmal climate for the exercise of
9. While St. Edward’s has never adequately articulated its reasons for firing Professor
Butler, the University’s vendetta against him appears to have begun when he attempted to exercise
governance. The Faculty Manual, which governed Professor Butler’s employment contract
2
specifically states that “The granting of tenure not only represents a commitment by the university
to the faculty member, but also imparts to the faculty member the responsibility for providing
leadership and continuity; for maintaining quality teaching and student advising; for the
development of academic programs; and for participation in university governance” […] (section
2.7.2).When Professor Butler expressed his opinions about the direction of the Communication
Department, a well-established privilege of tenure, and according to the Faculty Manual, a mandated
responsibility for all tenured faculty, his Dean and the Administration of the University retaliated
against him by firing him in violation of his tenure and academic freedom rights.
11. Rather than following the procedures in the Faculty Manual for dismissing a tenured
professor, the University purported to invoke the Faculty Manual’s provisions for dismissal for
cause. However, no specific acts that would substantiate a termination for cause were ever specified
by the University. Rather, the University vaguely accused Professor Butler of “continued disrespect
and disregard of the university mission and its goals” – one of the grounds of dismissal for cause set
forth in the Faculty Manual – without any specific indication of how he had done so.
12. In fact, Professor Butler’s record of evaluations at the University showed a consistent
financial woes.
14. The Faculty Manual which governed Professor Butler’s employment contract,
outlines the steps that are supposed to precede terminations and nonrenewals because of financial
exigency. In terminating Professor Butler without declaring financial exigency, and following the
procedure outlined in section 2.8.7.2 of the Faculty Manual, the University violated its own policy.
3
15. The University’s termination of Professor Butler was substantively and procedurally
vague, arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of Professor Butler’s tenure rights, the St. Edward’s
• Did not articulate “adequate cause” or “just cause” to terminate tenured faculty;
• Failed to state the charges against Professor Butler in reasonable particularity despite his
repeated requests;
• Denied Professor Butler the opportunity to be heard and to cross examine witnesses at a
hearing before a faculty body;
• Did not make an adequate record of the proceedings against Professor Butler;
• Failed to specify the conduct that allegedly demonstrated “continued disrespect and disregard
to the university mission and its goals”;
• Conflated Professor Butler's case with that of his wife, in violation of both of their due process
rights; and
• Failed to follow financial exigency procedures stipulated in the Faculty Manual; and
• Denied Professor Butler his rights to a discovery process and a faculty hearing with cross
examination.
17. Each of these failures by St. Edward’s constituted a breach of the University’s
18. In addition to these breaches of its contract with Professor Butler, St. Edward’s added
insult to injury through multiple false and defamatory statements about Professor Butler made by
4
19. Accordingly, Professor Butler brings this suit for breach of contract and defamation.
20. For purposes of TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.1, Plaintiff alleges that discovery should be
21. Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P 47(c), Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000 and
III. PARTIES
22. Plaintiff Shannan Butler is a natural person and a resident of Austin, Texas.
organized under the laws of the State of Texas and has a principal place of business located at 3001
24. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case in that the allegations
contained herein stem from Texas common and/or statutory law over which this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction. In addition, the amount in controversy exceeds the Court’s minimum
jurisdictional limit.
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is a Texas-based non-
profit corporation formed under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal office in Texas and
26. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002, in
as much as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5
a. Background of Professor Butler’s Employment and Earning Tenure
27. Professor Butler has worked for St. Edward’s since September 2006. His wife,
Professor Corinne Weisgerber, also started working at St. Edward’s in September 2006.
29. Throughout his time at St. Edward’s, Professor Butler underwent a regular annual
performance review which evaluated his performance in three areas: teaching effectiveness, service,
30. Professor Butler received consistent positive chair and dean performance
evaluations. He received multiple Presidential Excellence Grants throughout his career at St.
Edward’s—grants specifically awarded by the University to faculty who “add to the reputation of
31. Throughout the previous decade, Professor Butler received only “strong” or
professional development.
32. On January 9, 2018, Professor Butler and his wife Professor Weisgerber were handed
almost identical termination letters alleging that they had “stopped participating as collegial
members of the Department.” Their letters stated that they were being terminated because they had
not fulfilled the expectation to conduct themselves “in a civil, collegial manner towards colleagues.”
33. The Faculty Manual requires that all faculty be evaluated in the area of service
including collegial relations on an annual basis. Section 2.5.1.2 states that an evaluation of collegial
6
34. Professor Butler was evaluated on collegial relations by his chair and/or dean since
35. Professor Butler’s 2015-2016 annual performance review signed by his dean and his
service which expressly “includes collegial relations,” Department Chair Dr. Teri Varner
commented that “You were very active in many ways during the period under review. I am looking
forward to next year. . .. I look forward to having you help the department get on track over the next
36. Professor Butler’s 2016-2017 annual performance review (his last review before his
abrupt termination), written by Associate Dean and Interim Communication Department Chair Dr.
Richard Bautch, likewise did not find any problems in the area of collegial relations. Dr. Bautch
confirmed that “You attend meetings/sessions of and make contributions to multiple entities on
37. Section 2.5 of the Faculty Manual states that “the evaluation of all faculty at St.
Edward’s University is solidly grounded in the principles articulated in the mission statement.” Yet
despite never having received a negative annual performance review of his collegiality, the
University’s termination letter accuses him of “continued disrespect and disregard of the university
38. Professor Butler was well-recognized and esteemed within the Communication
Department and was among the first three Communication professors who were granted tenure in
39. Throughout his employment at St. Edward’s, Professor Butler was highly involved
in department and faculty governance. At the time of his dismissal he served on the Faculty
7
Evaluation Committee (a prestigious committee in charge of promotion and tenure decisions) and
40. Beginning on or about Spring 2012, Professor Butler took a leading role in
Edward’s campus. On information and belief, this activity was disfavored by certain members of
41. On April 21, 2016, Professor Butler contacted Department Chair Dr. Teri Lynn
Varner to ask if she was going to run for chair again. She said she did not want to run and encouraged
42. The next day, after Professor Butler had already announced his candidacy, Dr. Varner
43. At that point, Dean Sharon Nell chose to change the standard chair nomination
procedures. When Professor Butler later questioned the change of policy he was admonished not to
ask questions.
44. Shortly after Professor Butler’s April 2016 run for Interim Department Chair, he and
his wife, Professor Weisgerber, were first targeted for unjust action by the St. Edward’s
Administration.
45. Professor Butler first learned of allegations against him in a meeting with Dean Nell
46. In that meeting, Dean Nell lodged vague and non-specific allegations of
unprofessional behavior that she had supposedly observed in May 2016, the month after Professor
8
47. Professor Butler had little, if any, face-to-face contact with Dr. Varner in May 2016.
Nothing unprofessional transpired in these limited interactions. He does not recall communicating
48. After the September 23, 2016 meeting, Professor Butler reached out to Human
Resources and Sr. Donna Jurick, Executive Vice President and Vice President for Academic Affairs,
to determine the precise nature of the allegations against him. He was never given an explanation or
49. Professor Butler was not put on a performance improvement plan in the September
50. However, Dean Sharon Nell, herself, had been placed on an improvement plan in
2014 and given an executive coach to work with her on the following areas: improve communication
effectiveness, develop a more collaborative approach, become more accessible, and build solid
relationships to help bridge common goals. All of these documented deficiencies played integral
51. After the September 23, 2016 meeting, Professor Butler reached out to Human
Resources and Sr. Donna Jurick, Executive Vice President and Interim Vice President for Academic
Affairs, to determine the precise nature of the allegations against him. He was never given an
52. Professor Butler and his wife Professor Weisgerber spent the next 15 months leading
53. Professor Butler received a positive annual performance review from Associate Dean
and Interim Communications Department Chair Dr. Richard Bautch on August 1, 2017. Dr. Bautch
commented that “In the leadership category your service to the FEC stands out as this is indeed a
9
committee that requires a large commitment of time and effort. You document and describe the
work that you did on the FEC so that it is abundantly clear you are providing leadership.”
54. Four weeks later, Dean Nell secretly added a page to Dr. Bautch’s positive annual
performance review. Dean Nell wrote that she did so in order to document the meeting that had
55. After discovering that Dean Nell had altered Dr. Bautch’s performance evaluation of
him, Professor Butler turned to Dr. Bautch and Sr. Donna for help. Professors Butler and Weisgerber
also repeatedly met with the AVP of HR, Kim Van Savage and asked her to launch an investigation
56. In separate meetings with Professor Butler, Dr. Bautch and Sr. Donna both confirmed
that they had not observed any new misconduct that would have occurred since the September 23,
2016 meeting.
57. Professor Butler repeatedly informed Dr. Bautch and Ms. Van Savage about the acts
of retaliation that occurred after the September 23, 2016 meeting and about the toll Dean Nell’s
actions had taken on his mental and physical health. After Professor Weisgerber forwarded an
article on “Abusers and Enablers in Faculty Culture” to HR, Ms. Van Savage seemed concerned
58. Shortly after Ms. Van Savage agreed to look into the issue, but before she had the
opportunity to finish her informal investigation, Professor Butler was abruptly terminated.
59. The fact that Professor Butler was terminated immediately after he asked HR to open
an investigation supports the conclusion expressed in the AAUP Report by another faculty member
c. Termination
10
60. Without prior warning, on January 9, 2018, at a meeting with Sr. Donna Jurick,
Executive Vice President and Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Kim Van Savage,
Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Professors Butler and Weisgerber were handed
almost identical letters announcing the University’s intention to terminate their employment.
61. To the extent that Professor Butler was handed a nearly-identical copy of Professor
Weisgerber’s termination letter and accused of doing the same things to the same people at the same
time as his wife, the letter appears to be based on some theory of vicarious liability for one another’s
62. The conflation of Professor Butler with his wife and the termination letters’ tendency
63. The termination letter did not state the charges in reasonable particularity and
Professor Butler received no explanation or specific examples of the allegations. Nor was he allowed
to ask any questions concerning the charges or allegations during the January 9, 2018 termination
64. By failing to provide Professor Butler with a summary description of the evidence
relied upon by the university specifying the cause of his termination, the University violated Section
65. In addition to repeating the vague allegations regarding supposed misconduct in May
2016, the January 9, 2018 termination letter made further vague allegations regarding supposed
misconduct occurring in March, April, November and during a December 8, 2017 meeting.
11
66. On information and belief, the unspecified allegations related to the December 8,
2017 meeting stem from false and malicious comments made about Professor Butler by the
Associate Dean and Interim Communications Department Chair Dr. Richard Bautch.
67. Professor Butler still does not know what he is alleged to have said or done that lead
to his termination. Professor Butler was not even in attendance at the April 2017 meeting that made
68. To the extent that the allegations in the January 9, 2018 letter accused Professor
Butler of misconduct at a time that he was primarily not on campus and accused Professor Butler of
misconduct at a meeting he did not attend, the letter appears to be based upon arbitrary and
69. The letter states that “you have been counseled to correct this behavior.” Professor
Butler was summoned to a single meeting in 2016 where he was charged with improper conduct.
Dean Nell and Dr. Bautch refused to give examples or evidence of the conduct during that meeting.
Professor Butler did not have any other meeting about his behavior, and received no written warning
70. The Department Chair is required to have minutes taken at each faculty meeting, to
get the minutes approved, and to upload them to a shared management system. These minutes
constitute the official record of what transpired at any given faculty meeting. On information and
71. Professor Butler was not given an opportunity to examine any evidence against him
or challenge any evidence against him, through cross examination or otherwise. Indeed, the
12
72. The January 9, 2018 termination letter did not state the charges in reasonable
particularity and at no time has Professor Butler received an explanation or specific examples of the
73. Far from denying that the charges levied at Professor Butler during the September
23, 2016 meeting with Dean Nell were vague and devoid of specific examples of the alleged
misconduct, the University’s Human Resources department in response to Professor Butler’s request
to have the accusations specified or removed, later noted in an email to Professor Butler that “the
fact that you have received no examples of the behaviors exhibited that you have been asked to
74. At the January 9, 2018 termination meeting, Sr. Donna and Human Resources
representative Kim Van Savage stated that no one questioned the quality of Professor Butler’s
teaching and research nor did they question the friendships he has with his colleagues in the
Communication Department.
75. Professor Butler was ostensibly afforded a chance to appeal the termination decision
to a faculty committee. But Professor Butler was required to write his appeal without knowing what
76. When asked about what information would be provided to the committee, President
George Martin replied, “The information provided to the Faculty Review Committee and/or me for
purpose of an appeal are (i) the termination letter and (ii) your written appeal, so you are in
13
77. Despite numerous requests, Professor Butler was not allowed to know the identity of
the faculty members appointed to this faculty review committee. Professor Butler was also not
informed about the procedure or criteria used by the committee to reach a decision.
78. Although Professor Butler was afforded the opportunity to submit a written
submission to the faculty review committee, he was not permitted to appear before that committee
in person.
79. Indeed, beyond the opportunity to submit a written defense to the faculty review
committee, Professor Butler is not aware of any “hearing” that was conducted with regard to his
termination.
80. Instead, Professor Butler was told by a University representative that “[t]he faculty
appeal process does not include discovery or a discovery-like process, and does not allow for the
faculty members to demand further justification of the decisions beyond the information which has
81. On information and belief, no “hearing” was ever held before the faculty review
committee.
82. No record or transcript of any hearing by the faculty review committee was ever
83. Professor Butler was never told the identity of the alleged witnesses against him, nor
was he afforded the opportunity to cross examine or otherwise confront any of these alleged
witnesses.
84. On March 22, 2018, Professor Butler was advised that the faculty review committee
had voted to recommend his termination to the St. Edward’s President George E. Martin.
14
85. On information and belief, the faculty review committee did not provide any reasons
86. On March 29, 2018, President Martin terminated Professor Butler. President Martin
did not provide any reason for this decision beyond reference to the earlier termination
recommendations.
87. Professor Butler was then afforded an opportunity to appeal President Martin’s
termination decision to the Institutional Oversight and Academic Affairs Committee of the Board
of Trustees of St. Edward’s (the “Oversight Committee”). This appeal required him to challenge a
process and its outcome without having been given virtually any information about the process or
88. On April 30, 2018, Professor Butler submitted his appeal to the Oversight
Committee.
89. On May 15, 2018, the Oversight Committee denied Professor Butler’s appeal in a
summary fashion, concluding without any further engagement with the underlying facts or the
procedural deficiencies raised by his appeal, that the decision to terminate him was “not arbitrary
and capricious.”
90. Professor Butler’s termination from St. Edward’s became final and official after the
91. Because of the nature of the academic job market, finding an equivalent tenured or
92. The process and substantive standards by which St. Edward’s terminated Professor
Butler, a tenured professor, fell far short of the fundamental meaning of tenure and numerous
15
provisions of the St. Edward’s Faculty Manual as well as the 1940 Statement. As such, St. Edward’s
breached its tenure employment contract with Professor Butler by terminating him.
93. Section 2.9.2 of the St. Edward’s Faculty Manual expressly incorporates the AAUP’s
94. According to the 1940 Statement, academic due process encompasses the following
components: (1) a statement of charges in reasonable particularity; (2) opportunity for a hearing
before a faculty hearing body; (3) the right of counsel if desired; (4) the right to present evidence
and to cross-examine; (5) a record of the hearing; and (6) opportunity to appeal to the governing
board.
95. Subsequent interpretations of the 1940 Statement generally accepted within the
academic field and understood to be incorporated into the concept of tenure provide that in cases of
• Adequate cause for dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness
of faculty members in their professional capacitates as teachers or researchers.
Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic
freedom or other rights of American citizens;
• The faculty member will be permitted to have an academic adviser and counsel of
the faculty member's choice;
• A verbatim record of the hearing or hearings will be taken, and a copy will be made
available to the faculty member without cost, at the faculty member's request;
• The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution and will be
satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole;
16
• The faculty member and the administration will have the right to confront and cross-
examine all witnesses.
96. Despite incorporating the 1940 Statement in its Faculty Manual and, accordingly,
Professor Butler’s employment contract, the University’s conduct in terminating Professor Butler
97. St. Edward’s failed to provide a statement of the charges against Professor Butler in
reasonable particularity.
98. St. Edward’s failed to provide Professor Butler an opportunity to appear at and
99. St. Edward’s failed to provide Professor Butler the right to cross examine the
100. St. Edward’s failed to provide Professor Butler with an adequate record of the faculty
101. St. Edward’s used dismissal to restrain Professor Butler’s academic freedom and
102. St. Edward’s shifted the burden of proof to Professor Butler, lodging the vaguest of
103. As such, St. Edward’s breached Section 2.9.2 of the Faculty Manual, which was a
part of the terms of Professor Butler’s employment contract with Defendant, as well as the 1940
104. Section 2.9.2 begins with the statement “The fundamental purposes of the university
identified in the mission statement require full commitment to academic freedom.” Thus the mission
itself, which Professor Butler is charged with violating, is fundamentally supportive of academic
freedom.
17
105. The second paragraph directly quotes the AAUP’s 1940 statement on academic
freedom, stating that “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not
to further the interests of the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good
depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.” It is clear from this statement that
even if Professor Butler had wished to “launch a campaign against university decisions,” that it was
his right (and responsibility) to do so. According to this paragraph, utilizing his academic freedom
in support of his students, colleagues, and department, trumps even the University itself.
106. According to paragraph 3, academic freedom “carries with it duties correlative with
University Professors and American Association of Colleges).” If these “duties” and “rights” were
not intended to fall in line with the 1940’s AAUP statement, then the statement should not have
107. Section 2.8.6 of the Faculty Manual provides that if a negative periodic review is
given, tenured faculty “may be terminated in accord with the procedures set forth in Section 2.5.6.2.”
108. The procedures in Section 2.5.6.2 require that a tenured faculty member be given a
performance improvement plan and two years to correct any deficiencies before termination is
considered.
109. If the school committee gives a negative review, it is required to hold a conference
with the faculty member and discuss the committee’s findings and assist the faculty member in
18
112. Professor Butler was terminated less than two years after the first ever complaint
about his alleged conduct arose. His termination could therefore not have been based on a
“continuing string of unprofessional and disruptive behavior dating back a number of years” as his
113. Professor Butler was never afforded a conference or other opportunity to discuss any
committee’s findings and formulate an improvement plan to correct any alleged deficiencies.
114. Defendant thus breached Sections 2.8.6 and 2.5.6.2 of the Faculty Manual.
115. In the January 9, 2018 termination letters, St. Edward’s represented that Professor
Butler was “terminated for just cause pursuant to Section 2.8.4 of the Faculty Manual.”
116. Section 2.8.4 of the Faculty Manual sets forth the species of “cause” sufficient to
117. The list of offenses listed in Section 2.8.4 are quite severe, including: “professional
responsibilities; failure to fulfill contractual obligations as set forth in this Faculty Manual;
scandal; or continued disrespect or disregard for the mission and goals of the university.”
118. Of these offenses, the termination letters list only one as the cause for Professor
Butler’s termination: “continued disrespect and disregard for the mission and goals of the
university.”
19
120. The allegation of “continued disrespect and disregard” is unequivocally contradicted
by Professor Butler’s uniformly positive performance reviews and by his multiple Presidential
Excellence Grant awards—grants specifically awarded by the University to faculty who “add to the
3 months after the alleged misconduct against that same chair took place—specifically highlights
his “excellent service,” and that the chair was “look[ing] forward to working with [him] next year!”
122. By failing to abide by the standards set forth in Section 2.8.4 and by ignoring the
provisions of Sections 2.8.6 and 2.5.6.2, St. Edward’s breached its commitments under the Faculty
Manual.
123. Section 2.5.4.5 of the Faculty Manual requires the Dean’s evaluations of a faculty
124. On August 29, 2017, Dean Sharon Nell added a page to Professor Butler’s 2016-17
positive annual chair performance review and uploaded it to the University’s computer system
without informing Professor Butler of the changes. The page Dean Nell added consisted of an
abridged and slightly altered account documenting the September 23, 2016 meeting.
125. Professor Butler was not notified that Dean Nell had changed his evaluation in this
126. St. Edward’s thus breached Section 2.5.4.5 of its Faculty Manual.
127. Sr. Donna Jurick confirmed on two occasions that no one questioned Professor
Weisgerber and Butler’s teaching and research abilities and record; that their colleagues liked them
20
as friends; that they are highly talented and highly skilled in their field; that they are considered
128. Similarly, President George Martin in prepared remarks to the Faculty Collegium on
May 4, 2018 and in further email with the faculty on August 1, argued that Professor Weisgerber
and Butler’s terminations were not based on “the content of their speech on matters having to do
with the university or its policies” and that “these two cases do not involve issues of academic
129. Contrary to those claims, the termination letter specifically alleges that Professor
Butler engaged in “a campaign of disruption and disrespect for university decisions.” The
termination letter also lists several concerns about university policies expressed verbally by
Professors Butler, particularly policies Dean Sharon Nell was imposing exclusively on the
130. At a May 4, 2018 Faculty Collegium, President Martin made a number of false and
131. President Martin stated that Professor Butler was terminated for “a documented
132. Not only was there no pattern of bullying behavior and intimidation, but no such
133. President Martin further stated that Professor Butler had been “dismissed after
21
135. To the contrary, as described above, Defendant never gave Professor Butler
examples of his allegedly improper behavior, and failed to abide by the counseling procedures set
136. Professor Butler never acknowledged having been counseled on his behavior.
137. These false statements were made by Dr. Martin in front of all of Professor Butler’s
erstwhile St. Edward’s colleagues. On May 22, 2018, the minutes containing the President’s
defamatory statements were emailed to all contracted faculty members at St. Edward’s University.
138. In an August 1, 2018 email to all faculty and a subsequent August 2nd Facebook
Workplace post visible to the entire St. Edward’s community, Dr. Martin repeated these false and
defamatory statements, claiming “these two cases do not involve issues of academic freedom at the
university. Rather, the cases of Professor Butler and Professor Weisgerber are based upon
interpersonal behavioral issues with fellow faculty and staff and a failure to modify behavior despite
139. Professor Butler was never counseled by Dean Nell, let alone by two deans.
140. While President Martin seems to have dropped the bullying charges, and no longer
claims that these charges have been documented, Professor Butler never engaged in a consistent
141. In his October 25, 2018 email and Facebook post, Dr. Martin further alleges that
“Their pattern of intimidation and personal attacks is evident in the [AAUP] report, falsely
disparaging well-respected faculty members such as Dr. Richard Bautch and members of the
Communication Department.”
142. Nothing in the AAUP Report disparages Dr. Bautch as President Martin alleges.
22
143. In a coordinated response to the AAUP’s Report, Senate President Lorelei Ortiz sent
BREACH OF CONTRACT
144. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the
145. Defendant materially breached its obligations to Plaintiff under its contract with him,
146. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s failure to abide by its obligations.
147. As a result of Defendant’s failure to abide by its obligations, Plaintiff has been forced
148. Plaintiff has served written demand pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
38.001 upon Defendant either prior to or concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, so that upon
trial of this case more than thirty days after the delivery of such letter, Plaintiff will be entitled to
DEFAMATION
149. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above
150. Defendant slandered Plaintiff by willfully and knowingly publishing false statements
that were believed by third parties and had a negative impact on Plaintiff’s career and life.
151. The defamatory and disparaging statements that Defendant, its officers, agents,
23
152. Plaintiff’s reputation has sustained actual damages by the defamatory and
153. Plaintiff has suffered general damages by reason of injury to character and reputation,
emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
154. Plaintiff has suffered special damages in the form loss of earning capacity, loss of
past and future income, loss of tenure, loss of six years’ work toward a promotion, loss of
157. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 195, Plaintiff requests that Defendant
disclose, within 50 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule
194.2.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be cited to appear and answer,
and that final judgment be granted against Defendant awarding Plaintiff the following:
160. Costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including
161. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001;
24
162. Compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages;
164. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
25