Mootry v. Bethune-Cookman University, Inc.
186 So. 3d 15
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Dr. Russell Mootry was a tenured BCU professor (since 1977), terminated in May 2009 for "cause" after an internal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. His estate appeals after a jury found BCU did not materially breach his employment contract.
- BCU never convened the faculty committee called for in its handbook; instead president Reed directed outside investigator Bo Brewer (hired for other staffing work) to investigate, promising anonymity and later destroying identifying notes.
- Brewer produced a report summarizing anonymous student and faculty statements (none of the alleged victims testified at trial) and recommending termination; Mootry was suspended, met Brewer, denied the allegations, and was not told accusers’ identities.
- At trial the court admitted Brewer’s unredacted report and other out-of-court statements over Mootry’s objections, and permitted BCU’s outside counsel, employment-law attorney Kelly Kwiatek, to testify that BCU had "cause" and provided "due process."
- Mootry argued (1) summary judgment denial error, (2) admission of hearsay (Brewer report and other testimony), (3) improper opinion testimony by BCU’s counsel, and (4) verdict contrary to weight of evidence. The court reversed on issues 2 and 3 and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Brewer’s investigative report (hearsay) | Report is hearsay and was used to prove Mootry committed sexual harassment; should be excluded | Report was admissible to show BCU’s reasonableness in investigating/terminating; limiting instruction cured any prejudice | Reversed: report was hearsay and improperly admitted; error not harmless; new trial ordered |
| Admission of other out-of-court student statements | Testimony recounting student allegations (e.g., squeezing buttocks) was hearsay and inadmissible | Statements were relevant to BCU’s decision/investigation | Error to admit these statements; to be excluded on retrial |
| Opinion testimony by BCU’s outside counsel (ultimate issue) | Kwiatek’s opinions told jury how to decide whether there was cause and due process; improper | Defendant: expert may testify on ultimate issue; testimony admissible under rule allowing opinions on ultimate issues | Reversed: counsel’s testimony improperly instructed jury; abuse of discretion to admit such opinion evidence; not harmless |
| Validity / good faith of proposals for settlement (attorney’s fees) | Mootry argued proposals were not made in good faith (nominal amounts inconsistent with case stakes) | Defendants argued offers were valid settlement tools and later BCU’s 2013 offer was not an invalid joint offer | Mixed: Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding 2012 offers not made in good faith (affirmed); trial court erred finding 2013 offer an undifferentiated joint offer (reversed), but enforceability deferred pending retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 684 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (out-of-court statements offered for non-truth purpose admissible only when that purpose is a material issue)
- State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904 (Fla. 1990) (limitations on admitting statements offered for non-truth purposes)
- Placet, Inc. v. Ashton, 368 So.2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (good faith or reasonableness of terminating party not a defense to breach of contract for wrongful discharge)
- Schneer v. Allstate Indem. Co., 767 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (expert testimony must not tell jury how to decide the case or merely state ultimate conclusions)
- McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613 (Fla. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for admissibility of expert opinion)
- Mathis v. Cook, 140 So.3d 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (release language in proposed settlement does not necessarily convert separate offers into an undifferentiated joint offer)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (abuse of discretion standard explained)