Gordon v. University of Texas Medical Branch
700 F. App'x 350
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brian Gordon, an attending veterinarian at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), was terminated after reporting alleged mistreatment of animals to his supervisor and UTMB’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).
- Gordon sued UTMB and supervisor Toni D’Agostino under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment denial of a name-clearing hearing; he also asserted a state-law defamation claim.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a § 1983 claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim, dismissing it with prejudice; it denied leave to amend.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of leave to amend for futility de novo and affirmed dismissal of the federal claims but found error in dismissing the state defamation claim with prejudice.
- The court concluded Gordon’s reports to his supervisor and the IACUC were made pursuant to his official duties (Garcetti framework), and that alleged post-termination statements were opinion, not concrete false charges required for a name-clearing damages claim.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims against UTMB based on sovereign immunity and remanded to dismiss the defamation claim without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gordon spoke as a private citizen for First Amendment retaliation | Gordon says his reports were as a private citizen, not part of job duties | UTMB says reporting to supervisor and IACUC was within official duties | Held for defendant: speech was pursuant to official duties (Garcetti) |
| Whether Gordon stated a due process name-clearing damages claim | Gordon says he was denied a name-clearing hearing and suffered reputational harm from statements | UTMB says statements alleged were opinions and not false concrete charges tied to discharge | Held for defendant: plaintiff failed to allege false, concrete charges made in connection with discharge |
| Whether district court properly dismissed state-law defamation claim with prejudice | Gordon sought to pursue defamation in federal court | UTMB moved to dismiss after federal claims dismissed | Held for plaintiff on remedy: dismissal of state claim must be without prejudice; vacated and remanded |
| Whether UTMB is immune from suit | Gordon did not meaningfully contest sovereign immunity | UTMB asserted Eleventh Amendment/state sovereign immunity | Held for defendant: UTMB entitled to sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties is not protected public‑employee speech under the First Amendment)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (focus is whether the speech itself is within job duties)
- Rosenstein v. City of Dallas, 876 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1989) (elements for a name‑clearing damages claim)
- Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing opinion from concrete false assertions of wrongdoing)
- Richardson v. Southern University, 118 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 1997) (universities may be arms of the state entitled to sovereign immunity)