223 F. Supp. 3d 592
E.D. Tex.2016Background
- Dale Wilkerson, a long‑time non‑tenured Principal Lecturer at the University of North Texas (UNT), received a five‑year term contract and generally positive evaluations before nonrenewal for alleged "poor judgment" after a consensual, brief relationship with a nonstudent (CB) and a subsequent OEO sexual‑harassment investigation that exonerated him.
- Department Chair Patricia Glazebrook withheld Wilkerson’s renewal letter pending the OEO investigation; OEO found no violation and CB did not appeal, but Glazebrook nonetheless notified Wilkerson his contract would not be renewed.
- Wilkerson appealed through UNT’s grievance process: the College Grievance Committee (CASGC) recommended reversal, but Dean Goven considered extra (ex parte) information and upheld the nonrenewal; further administrative review (Ad Hoc Committee and Provost review) produced mixed procedures and limited findings, and the firing was ultimately upheld by a later Provost.
- Wilkerson sued UNT and individuals (including Glazebrook, Goven, Burggren, Smatresk, Graves) asserting § 1983 claims (due process, equal protection, First Amendment association/retaliation), Title IX retaliation, breach of contract, and tortious interference; defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The court dismissed certain claims and defendants (e.g., § 1983 and breach claims against UNT; Smatresk and Graves; several claims against Burggren, Goven, Glazebrook) but denied dismissal for other claims, allowing: Title IX retaliation claim against UNT; § 1983 property‑interest (due process) and tortious interference claims against Burggren, Goven, and Glazebrook; and granted leave to amend limited factual defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction | Federal claims (§ 1983, Title IX) provide federal jurisdiction | Dismiss for lack of federal-question jurisdiction | Jurisdiction proper; dismissal denied on this ground |
| Title IX retaliation (against UNT) | Wilkerson alleges retaliation after participating in OEO investigation; regulation protects “any individual” participating | Defendants: Title IX doesn’t protect the subject of an investigation | Court: Plaintiff plausibly alleged Title IX retaliation by UNT; motion denied on that ground |
| § 1983 claims against UNT and individuals based solely on Title IX | Wilkerson seeks to enforce Title IX rights via § 1983 against individuals | Defendants: Fitzgerald bars § 1983 claims based on Title IX against individuals | Court: § 1983 cannot be predicated on Title IX to sue individuals; such claims dismissed |
| Property interest (due process) in term‑contract renewal | University customs/policies and positive evaluations created a legitimate entitlement to renewal (Sindermann theory) | Defendants: Non‑tenured status and contract terms show no entitlement; no clearly established right | Court: Allegations sufficient to state deprivation of property interest; right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes; claim survives against Burggren, Goven, Glazebrook |
| Liberty interest (stigma‑plus) | Wilkerson alleges reputational harm from false charges and lack of opportunity to clear his name | Defendants: No public disclosure of stigmatizing charges alleged | Court: Most elements pleaded; publication element insufficiently alleged but court granted leave to amend to plead it |
| Freedom of association / First Amendment retaliation | Wilkerson claims protection for associational choice and retaliation for abstaining from a chair‑retention survey | Defendants: Abstention/survey were internal job matters and not protected speech; associational right (dating) not clearly established | Court: First Amendment retaliation claim dismissed; associational claim allowed against certain individual defendants but individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity on association ground because right not clearly established |
| Equal Protection (class‑of‑one) | Wilkerson alleges he was treated differently than similarly situated non‑tenured faculty | Defendants: Class‑of‑one theory not available in public employment | Court: Equal protection claim dismissed because not based on membership in a protected class |
| Tortious interference (individuals) | Individual defendants intentionally interfered with Wilkerson’s UNT contract | Defendants: As agents/employees acting for employer, they cannot tortiously interfere with their own employer’s contract; immunity defenses | Court: Complaint plausibly alleges willful, ultra vires interference by Burggren, Goven, Glazebrook; claim survives at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property and liberty interests in public employment)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (de facto tenure and property interest from university practices)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (2009) (§ 1983 parallel claims and limits on using Title IX as basis to sue individuals)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limits on class‑of‑one equal protection claims in public employment)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (Title IX protects those who complain of sex discrimination)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and requirement to plead factual content)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity framework)