Neal Vanzante v. Texas a & M University
13-15-00313-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Neal Vanzante (age 66) applied for a posted endowed Chair of Accounting & Finance at Texas A&M University–Kingsville in Feb. 2012; Carol Sullivan (age 51) was later hired.
- The department search committee concluded Sullivan was not qualified (vote 8–1) and recommended against interviewing her; Dean Tom Dock privately met and then hired Sullivan without following the committee’s recommendation.
- University investigations later found Dock engaged in misconduct (including falsifying records and misuse of funds) related to the hiring.
- Vanzante contends (1) a 2006 settlement/release with TAMU–Corpus Christi expressly allowed him to apply for future endowed-chair openings at TAMU–Kingsville; (2) he met the posted minimum and preferred qualifications (Full Professor rank and AACSB “academically qualified” status); and (3) the articulated reasons for not hiring him were pretextual and motivated by age discrimination.
- Procedural posture: trial court denied defendant’s plea to jurisdiction and no-evidence MSJ earlier, but on June 10, 2015 the court granted TAMU–Kingsville’s traditional motion for summary judgment and dismissed Vanzante’s suit; this brief is appellant’s amended brief seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2006 settlement/release bars Vanzante’s claim or his application | Vanzante: the release expressly preserved his right to apply for future endowed‑chair positions at TAMU–Kingsville and did not bar this suit | TAMU–Kingsville: the prior release precludes Vanzante’s claims/ability to seek reemployment | Trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment (case dismissed) |
| Whether the settlement prohibited Vanzante from applying for the 2012 Chair | Vanzante: the release’s language and later university communications permitted resignation and reapplication; university accepted his resignations and he later applied multiple times | TAMU–Kingsville: release/settlement operates to limit his rights to reemployment (as asserted in MSJ) | Trial court sided with defendant on summary judgment (dismissal) |
| Whether Vanzante met the posted minimum qualifications (Full Professor and AACSB AQ) | Vanzante: he had long service as Full Professor, met AACSB AQ (publications and professional activities within the relevant look‑back period) and was processed by university as a qualified applicant | TAMU–Kingsville: argues Vanzante did not meet newly‑asserted qualifications (e.g., continuous current employment, leadership/administration criteria, currency rules) | Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant (dismissal) |
| Whether defendant’s stated reasons are pretext and age was a motivating factor | Vanzante: search committee and administrators originally found Sullivan unqualified; Dock changed/rewrote selection rationale after requests for reasons; Dock engaged in misconduct; Sullivan is substantially younger — all supporting pretext and discriminatory motive | TAMU–Kingsville: maintains legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for selection and disputes discrimination claim | Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant (dismissal); Vanzante appeals seeking reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997) (summary-judgment standards and evidentiary inferences)
- Farley v. M M Cattle Co., 529 S.W.2d 751 (Tex. 1975) (direct evidence must be submitted to jury)
- Gaines v. Hamman, 358 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. 1962) (purpose of summary judgment)
- Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (elements of prima facie employment discrimination)
- O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996) (age discrimination: replacement by younger person can suffice for prima facie case)
- Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2004) (age‑difference guidance in prima facie cases)
- Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (burden‑shifting framework in employment discrimination cases)
- Rincones v. WHM Custom Serv., 457 F.3d 221 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment and pretext discussion)