Trudeau v. Univ of N TX
20-40532
| 5th Cir. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Justin Trudeau, a tenured associate professor at the University of North Texas, taught a graduate theater course during which he allegedly made repeated sexually suggestive comments to and about students.
- Following complaints, UNT conducted a Title IX investigation and sustained multiple sexual-harassment findings against Trudeau.
- Sanctions included a written reprimand, reduced merit pay for the semester, and ineligibility to teach the summer 2019 term.
- Trudeau sued, alleging Title IX retaliation, violations of his First Amendment free-speech rights, and violations of procedural due process; the district court dismissed his claims (some with prejudice).
- Trudeau appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reviewed Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX retaliation | Trudeau says participation in the investigation was protected activity and alleged investigative flaws and bias show the discipline was retaliatory. | UNT says Trudeau failed to plead a causal (but-for) link between his participation and the sanctions; respondent may not even fall within Title IX's retaliation protection. | Affirmed dismissal — Trudeau did not plausibly allege that participation caused the adverse action; no adequate causal inference from procedural complaints. |
| First Amendment (public-employee speech) | Trudeau contends his in-class discussion of eroticism (based on an assigned text) was academic speech on a matter of public concern. | UNT contends the comments were not matters of public concern, were personal/employee speech (and disruptive), and thus not protected. | Affirmed dismissal — speech did not plausibly address a matter of public concern, so no First Amendment protection. |
| Due process (procedural) | Trudeau asserts UNT’s failure to follow its policies deprived him of procedural due process; he cites an offer letter/info sheet as creating contractual procedural rights. | UNT argues the letter/manual do not create an express, reciprocal contract or property interest in procedural protections; failure to follow internal rules alone is not a constitutional deprivation. | Affirmed dismissal — Trudeau failed to identify an outside-law or contract-created property interest in the handbook procedures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (recognizing private right of action for Title IX retaliation)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation)
- Willis v. Cleco Corp., 749 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2014) (retaliation elements and causal-link framework)
- Buchanan v. Alexander, 919 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2019) (public-concern inquiry for academic employee speech)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (content, form, context test for public-concern speech)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (threshold inquiry whether speech was made pursuant to official duties)
- Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2010) (property-interest requirement for procedural due process in employment)
- Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing government employer and employee speech interests)