Butler v. Collins
3:18-cv-00037
N.D. Tex.Jan 19, 2023Background
- Cheryl Butler, an assistant law professor at SMU (hired 2011), was denied tenure after the 2015–2016 review cycle following concerns about the quality of her teaching expressed by two tenure committees and faculty vote (negative recommendation Jan. 13, 2016).
- Butler appealed to Dean Collins and Provost Currall; appeals were denied; Butler did not appeal to the president. SMU paid Butler through spring 2017.
- Butler applied for and received FMLA leave (approved by HR) covering late 2015 through April 11, 2016; she submitted an ADA accommodation request on April 6, 2016 and received several accommodations. HR custodianship of medical records was undisputed.
- Butler sued asserting 30 counts (defamation, fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and multiple employment discrimination/retaliation claims under §1981, Title VII, ADA/RA, FMLA, TCHRA, and Title IX). Defendants removed the case and moved for summary judgment on remaining counts.
- Butler failed to timely respond to the summary judgment motion or controvert defendants’ facts; the court treated defendants’ summary-judgment facts as undisputed and granted summary judgment dismissing all remaining counts with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (tenure/Bylaws) | SMU breached employment contract and bylaws in tenure process and considered medical/ADA/FMLA matters improperly. | Process complied with contract, Bylaws, and Guidelines; tenure denial was for teaching deficiencies; no evidence of contractual breach. | Grant summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff failed to show breach element; claim dismissed. |
| Race discrimination (§1981, Title VII, TCHRA) — failure to promote | Denial of tenure was racially motivated. | Denial was based on nondiscriminatory teaching deficiencies; no evidence of racial motive; some comparators of same race received tenure. | Grant summary judgment; plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing and no pretext evidence. |
| Retaliation (§1981, Title VII, ADA, TCHRA, FMLA) | Tenure denial and alleged investigative failures were retaliation for complaints/requests (HR, ADA, FMLA). | No causal link: protected activity either vague or occurred after adverse action; decisionmakers lacked knowledge; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. | Grant summary judgment; plaintiff failed to show protected activity occurred before adverse action or causal link/but-for causation or pretext. |
| ADA/RA disability claims & failure-to-accommodate | SMU failed to accommodate disability (requested delayed tenure vote) and discriminated/harassed. | Tenure is not an essential job function; delayed vote is not a reasonable accommodation; SMU granted leave/accommodations; no evidence of disability-based adverse action. | Grant summary judgment; plaintiff not a qualified individual for the requested accommodation and no evidentiary support. |
| FMLA claims (interference, retaliation, restoration) | SMU interfered with FMLA, retaliated, invaded medical privacy, and failed to restore teaching duties. | SMU timely provided FMLA leave and benefits, afforded paid semesters, and did not deny restoration entitlements; no evidence adverse action was FMLA-motivated. | Grant summary judgment; no denial of FMLA benefits, no causal link for retaliation, and no entitlement to a particular teaching reinstatement shown. |
| Title IX (sex discrimination) | Title IX violation based on sex discrimination in tenure decision. | Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination at federally funded educational institutions; Title IX not available for employment claims here. | Grant summary judgment; Title IX claim dismissed as not a viable employment remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard; reasonable-jury inquiry)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s burden and effect of nonresponse to summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext and weighing employer’s asserted reasons)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- University of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retaliation causation: but-for standard)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (limitations on mixed-motive analysis)
- Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172 (accepting movant’s undisputed facts when nonmovant fails to oppose)
- Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455 (opponent must cite record evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- Owens v. Circassia Pharms., Inc., 33 F.4th 814 (applying McDonnell Douglas framework in Fifth Circuit)