Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-19-001294 D-1-GN-19-001294
Cause No. ________________ Ruben Tamez
Plaintiff Corinne Weisgerber (“Professor Weisgerber”), by and through her attorneys, brings
this action for damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendant St. Edward’s University
(“Defendant”). Specifically, Professor Weisgerber brings this action for breach of contract and
defamation against Defendant, and for any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the
facts set forth herein. In support thereof Professor Weisgerber respectfully shows the following:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Professor Weisgerber was a Tenured Associate Professor at St. Edward’s until being
fired without adequate cause or due process in violation of her tenure employment contract.
protections afforded to tenured professors, despite that these protections were embodied in the St.
Edward’s Faculty Manual and Professor Weisgerber’s employment contract. The University’s
unjustified firing of Professor Weisgerber also violated several independent provisions of its own
Faculty Manual.
3. This failure by St. Edward’s to abide by the ordinary and accepted meaning of
“tenured” status, its own Faculty Manual, and its own adoption of the American Association of
1
University Professors’ 1940 “Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom” (“1940 Statement”)
Edward’s.
Truth, speak freely, and participate in faculty governance without fear of retribution.
organization that since 1915 has played a leading role in shaping the standards and procedures that
maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country's colleges and universities, “the
climate for academic freedom at St. Edward’s has been deteriorating for a number of years and now
appears to be at its lowest point.” This deterioration has led to a climate described in the Report as
“toxic,” “hostile,” and “characterized, above all else, by fear.” The Report describes a “‘palpable’
8. The Report concluded that St. Edward’s has “an abysmal climate for the exercise of
9. While St. Edward’s has never adequately articulated its reasons for firing Professor
Weisgerber, the University’s termination decision appears to be based in part on her attempts to
governance.”
2
10. As a tenured professor, Professor Weisgerber was required to participate in
institutional governance. The Faculty Manual, which governed Professor Weisgerber’s employment
contract specifically states that “The granting of tenure not only represents a commitment by the
university to the faculty member, but also imparts to the faculty member the responsibility for
providing leadership and continuity; for maintaining quality teaching and student advising; for the
development of academic programs; and for participation in university governance” […] (section
2.7.2).When Professor Weisgerber expressed her opinions about the direction of the Communication
Department, a well-established privilege of tenure, and according to the Faculty Manual, a mandated
responsibility for all tenured faculty, her Dean and the Administration of the University retaliated
against her by firing her in violation of her tenure and academic freedom rights.
11. Rather than following the procedures set forth in the Faculty Manual for dismissing
a tenured professor, the University purported to invoke the Faculty Manual’s provisions for
dismissal for cause. However, no specific acts that would substantiate a termination for cause were
ever specified by the University. Rather, the University vaguely accused Professor Weisgerber of
“continued disrespect and disregard of the university mission and its goals”—one of the grounds for
dismissal for cause set forth in the Faculty Manual—without any specific indication of how she had
done so.
financial woes. The Faculty Manual which governed Professor Weisgerber’s employment contract
outlines the steps that are supposed to precede terminations and nonrenewals because of financial
exigency. In terminating Professor Weisgerber without declaring financial exigency, and following
3
the procedure outlined in section 2.8.7.2 of the Faculty Manual, the University violated its own
policy.
procedurally vague, arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of Professor Weisgerber’s tenure rights,
• Did not articulate “adequate cause” or “just cause” to terminate tenured faculty;
• Did not make an adequate record of the proceedings against Professor Weisgerber;
• Failed to specify the conduct that allegedly demonstrated “continued disrespect and
disregard of the university mission and its goals”;
• Conflated Professor Weisgerber’s case with that of her husband, in violation of both
of their due process rights;
• Failed to follow financial exigency procedures stipulated in the Faculty Manual; and
• Denied Professor Weisgerber her rights to a discovery process and a faculty hearing
with cross examination.
16. Each of these failures by St. Edward’s constituted a breach of the University’s
4
17. In addition to these breaches of its contract with Professor Weisgerber, St. Edward’s
added insult to injury through multiple false and defamatory statements about Professor Weisgerber
18. Accordingly, Professor Weisgerber brings this suit for breach of contract and
defamation.
22. For purposes of TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.1, Plaintiff alleges that discovery should be
23. Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P 47(c), Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000 and
all other relief to which she may be entitled, including specific performance.
PARTIES
24. Plaintiff Corinne Weisgerber is a natural person and a resident of Austin, Texas.
organized under the laws of the State of Texas and has a principal place of business located at 3001
26. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case in that the allegations
contained herein stem from Texas common and/or statutory law over which this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction. In addition, the amount in controversy exceeds the Court’s minimum
jurisdictional limit.
5
27. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is a Texas-based non-
profit corporation formed under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal office in Texas and
28. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002, in
as much as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this
STATEMENT OF FACTS
29. Professor Weisgerber has worked for St. Edward’s since September 2006. Her
husband, Professor Shannan Butler also started working at St. Edward’s in September 2006.
30. She was promoted from assistant to associate professor of Communication in 2012
31. Throughout her time at St. Edward’s, Professor Weisgerber underwent a regular
annual performance review which evaluated her performance in three areas: teaching effectiveness,
32. Professor Weisgerber received consistent positive chair and dean performance
evaluations. She received several Presidential Excellence Grants throughout her career at St.
Edward’s—grants specifically awarded by the University to faculty who “add to the reputation of
33. Throughout the previous decade, Professor Weisgerber received only “strong” or
professional development.
6
34. On January 9, 2018, Professor Weisgerber and her husband Professor Butler were
handed almost identical termination letters alleging that they had “stopped participating as collegial
members of the Department.” Their letters stated that they were being terminated because they had
not fulfilled the expectation to conduct themselves “in a civil, collegial manner towards colleagues.”
35. The Faculty Manual requires that all faculty be evaluated in the area of service
including collegial relations on an annual basis. Section 2.5.1.2 states that an evaluation of collegial
36. Professor Weisgerber was evaluated on collegial relations by her chair and/or dean
37. Professor Weisgerber’s 2015-16 annual performance review signed by her dean and
her chair in August/September 2016, specifically highlights Professor Weisgerber’s collegiality and
support of the university mission. It reads: “You have not only met category A by attending
meetings, being collegial, […], but you have also served in numerous leadership positions in the
community and organized a large-scale community event which is directly tied to our university's
38. Professor Weisgerber’s 2016-17 annual performance review (her last review before
her abrupt termination), written by Associate Dean and Interim Communications Department Chair
Dr. Richard Bautch, likewise did not find any problems in the area of collegial relations.
39. Section 2.5. of the Faculty Manual states that “the evaluation of all faculty at St.
Edward's University is solidly grounded in the principles articulated in the mission statement.” Yet
despite never having received a negative annual performance review of her collegiality, the
University’s termination letter accuses her “continued disrespect and disregard of the university
7
40. Professor Weisgerber was well-recognized and esteemed within the
Communications Department and was among the first three Communications professors who were
41. Throughout her employment at St. Edward’s, Professor Weisgerber was highly
42. Beginning on or about Spring 2012, Professor Weisgerber took a leading role in
attempting to organize a chapter of the American Association of University Professors on the St.
Edward’s campus. On information and belief, this activity was disfavored by certain members of
43. On April 21, 2016, Professor Weisgerber’s husband Professor Butler contacted
Department Chair Dr. Teri Lynn Varner to ask if she was going to run for chair again. Dr. Varner
said she did not want to run and encouraged Professor Butler to run instead.
44. The next day, after Professor Butler had already announced his candidacy, Dr. Varner
45. At that point, Dean Sharon Nell chose to change the standard chair nomination
procedures. When Professor Butler later questioned the change of policy he was admonished not to
ask questions.
46. Shortly after her husband’s April 2016 run for Interim Department Chair, Professor
Weisgerber was first targeted for unjust action by the St. Edward’s Administration.
47. Professor Weisgerber first learned of allegations against her in a meeting with Dean
8
48. Originally, only Professor Weisgerber’s husband Professor Butler was summoned to
this meeting with Dean Nell. Only after Professor Weisgerber asked Associate Dean Dr. Richard
Bautch for help on her husband’s behalf was she summoned to a separate September 23 meeting.
49. In that meeting, Dean Nell lodged vague and non-specific allegations of
unprofessional behavior aimed at Dr. Varner which Dean Nell had supposedly observed in May
2016, the month after Professor Butler’s run for Department Chair against Dr. Varner.
50. Professor Weisgerber was on sabbatical leave and not even on campus in May 2016.
She had no face-to-face interaction with Dr. Varner during that time and only exchanged a few task-
related emails with her. Nothing unprofessional was said in those emails.
51. After Dean Nell lodged the accusation of unprofessional behavior against her,
Professor Weisgerber asked for specific examples of any alleged unprofessional behavior. Dean
Sharon Nell and Associate Dean Richard Bautch both refused to provide any specific examples.
52. Professor Weisgerber was not put on a performance improvement plan in the
53. However, Dean Sharon Nell was put on an improvement plan in 2014 and given an
executive coach to work with her on the following areas: improve communication effectiveness,
develop a more collaborative approach, become more accessible, and build solid relationships to
help bridge common goals. All of these documented deficiencies played integral roles in the
54. After the September 23, 2016 meeting, Professor Weisgerber reached out to Human
Resources and Sr. Donna Jurick, Executive Vice President and Vice President for Academic Affairs,
to determine the precise nature of the allegations against her. She was never given an explanation
9
55. Professor Weisgerber and her husband Professor Butler spent the next 15 months
56. Professor Weisgerber received a positive annual performance review from Associate
Dean and Interim Communications Department Chair Dr. Richard Bautch on August 1, 2017.
57. Four weeks later, Dean Nell secretly added a page to Dr. Bautch’s positive annual
performance review. Dean Nell wrote that she did so in order to document the meeting that had
58. After discovering that Dean Nell had altered Dr. Bautch’s performance evaluation of
her, Professor Weisgerber turned to Dr. Bautch and Sr. Donna for help. Professors Weisgerber and
Butler also repeatedly met with the AVP of HR, Kim Van Savage and asked her to launch an
59. In separate meetings with Professor Weisgerber, Dr. Bautch and Sr. Donna both
confirmed that they had not observed any new misconduct that would have occurred since the
60. Professor Weisgerber repeatedly informed Dr. Bautch and Ms. Van Savage about
acts of retaliation that had occurred after the Septempber 23, 2016 meeting and about the toll Dean
Nell’s actions had taken on her mental and physical health. After Professor Weisgerber forwarded
an article on “Abusers and Enablers in Faculty Culture” to HR, Ms. Van Savage seemed concerned
61. Shortly after Ms. Van Savage agreed to look into the issue but before she had the
opportunity to finish her informal investigation, Professor Weisgerber was abruptly terminated.
10
62. The fact that Professor Weisgerber was terminated immediately after she asked HR
to open an investigation supports the conclusion expressed in the AAUP Report by another faculty
a. Termination
63. Without prior warning, on January 9, 2018, at a meeting with Sr. Donna Jurick,
Executive Vice President and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Kim Van Savage, Associate
Vice President for Human Resources, Professors Weisgerber and Butler were handed almost
64. To the extent that Professor Weisgerber was handed a nearly-identical copy of
Professor Butler’s termination letter and accused of doing the same things to the same people at the
same time as her husband, the letter appears to be based upon some theory of vicarious liability for
one another’s alleged conduct because Professor Butler is Professor Weisgerber's spouse.
65. This conflation of Professor Weisgerber with her husband and the termination letters’
66. The termination letter did not state the charges in reasonable particularity and even
after directly requesting them, Professor Weisgerber received no explanation or specific examples
of the allegations. Nor was she allowed to ask any questions concerning the charges or allegations
evidence relied upon by the university in specifying the cause of her termination, the University
11
68. In addition to repeating the vague allegations regarding supposed misconduct in May
2016, the January 9, 2018 termination letter made further vague allegations regarding supposed
misconduct occurring in March, April, November and during the December 8, 2017 meeting.
69. On information and belief, the unspecified allegations related to the December 8,
2017 meeting stem from false and malicious comments made about Professor Weisgerber by the
Associate Dean and Interim Communications Department Chair Dr. Richard Bautch.
70. Professor Weisgerber still does not know what she is alleged to have said or done
that lead to her termination. Professor Weisgerber was not even on campus when her alleged
71. Professor Weisgerber likewise was not in attendance at the April 2017 meeting that
made up part of the allegations against her and which allegedly “was adjourned prematurely due to
72. To the extent that the allegations in the January 9, 2018 letter accused Professor
Weisgerber of misconduct at a time that she was not on campus and accused Professor Weisgerber
of misconduct at a meeting she did not attend, the letter appears to be based on arbitrary and
73. The letter states that “you have been counseled to correct this behavior.” Professor
Weisgerber was summoned to a single meeting in 2016 where she was charged with improper
conduct. Dean Nell and Dr. Bautch refused to give examples or evidence of the conduct during that
meeting. Professor Weisgerber did not have any other meeting about her behavior, and received no
74. The Department Chair is required to have minutes taken at each faculty meeting, to
get the minutes approved, and to upload them to a shared file management system. These minutes
12
constitute the official record of what transpired at any given faculty meeting. On information and
75. Professor Weisgerber was not given an opportunity to examine any evidence against
her or challenge any evidence against her, through cross examination or otherwise. Indeed, the
76. The January 9, 2018 termination letter did not state the charges in reasonable
particularity and at no time has Professor Weisgerber received an explanation or specific examples
77. Far from denying that the charges levied at Professor Weisgerber during the
September 23, 2016 meeting with Dean Nell were vague and devoid of specific examples of the
Weisgerber’s request to have the accusations specified or removed, later noted in an email to
Professor Weisgerber that “the fact that you have received no examples of the behaviors exhibited
that you have been asked to change, is sufficient reason for your appeal.”
78. At the January 9, 2018 termination meeting, Sr. Donna and Human Resources
representative Kim Van Savage stated that no one questioned the quality of Professor Weisgerber’s
teaching and research nor did they question the friendships she had in the Communication
Department.
79. Professor Weisgerber was ostensibly afforded a chance to appeal the termination
decision to a faculty committee. But Professor Weisgerber was required to write her appeal without
knowing what evidence, particular incidents, or instruction would be provided to the committee.
13
80. When asked about what information would be provided to the committee, President
George Martin replied, “The information provided to the Faculty Review Committee and/or me for
purpose of an appeal are (i) the termination letter and (ii) your written appeal, so you are in
81. Despite numerous requests, Professor Weisgerber was not allowed to know the
identity of the faculty members appointed to this faculty review committee. Professor Weisgerber
was also not informed about the procedure or criteria used by the committee to reach a decision.
82. Although Professor Weisgerber was afforded the opportunity to submit a written
submission to the faculty review committee, she was not permitted to appear before that committee
in person.
83. Indeed, beyond the opportunity to submit a written defense to the faculty review
committee, Professor Weisgerber is not aware of any “hearing” that was conducted with regard to
her termination.
84. Instead, Professor Weisgerber was told by a University representative that “[t]he
faculty appeal process does not include discovery or a discovery-like process, and does not allow
for the faculty members to demand further justification of the decisions beyond the information
which has been provided.” This policy is not included in the Faculty Manual.
85. On information and belief, no “hearing” was ever held before the faculty review
committee.
86. No record or transcript of any hearing by the faculty review committee was ever
14
87. Professor Weisgerber was never told the identity of the alleged witnesses against her,
nor was she afforded the opportunity to cross examine or otherwise confront any of these alleged
witnesses.
88. On March 22, 2018, Professor Weisgerber was advised that the faculty review
committee had voted to recommend her termination to the St. Edward’s President, George E. Martin.
89. On information and belief, the faculty review committee did not provide any reasons
90. On March 29, 2018, President Martin terminated Professor Weisgerber. President
Martin did not provide any reason for this decision beyond reference to the earlier termination
recommendations.
91. Professor Weisgerber was then afforded an opportunity to appeal President Martin’s
termination decision to the Institutional Oversight and Academic Affairs Committee of the Board
of Trustees of St. Edward’s (the “Oversight Committee”). This appeal required her to challenge a
process and its outcome without having been given virtually any information about the process or
92. On April 30, 2018, Professor Weisgerber submitted her appeal to the Oversight
Committee.
93. On May 15, 2018, the Oversight Committee denied Professor Weisgerber’s appeal
in a summary fashion, concluding without any further engagement with the underlying facts or the
procedural deficiencies raised by her appeal, that the decision to terminate her was “not arbitrary
and capricious.”
94. Professor Weisgerber’s termination from St. Edward’s became final and official after
15
95. Because of the nature of the academic job market, finding an equivalent tenured or
96. The process and substantive standards by which St. Edward’s terminated Professor
Weisgerber, a tenured professor, fell far short of the fundamental meaning of tenure and numerous
provisions of the St. Edward’s Faculty Manual as well as the 1940 Statement. As such, St. Edward’s
breached its tenure employment contract with Professor Weisgerber by terminating her.
97. Section 2.9.2 of the St. Edward’s Faculty Manual expressly incorporates the AAUP’s
98. According to the 1940 Statement, academic due process encompasses the following
components: (1) a statement of charges in reasonable particularity; (2) opportunity for a hearing
before a faculty hearing body; (3) the right of counsel if desired; (4) the right to present evidence
and to cross-examine; (5) a record of the hearing; and (6) opportunity to appeal to the governing
board.
99. Subsequent interpretations of the 1940 Statement generally accepted within the
academic field and understood to be incorporated into the concept of tenure provide that in cases of
• Adequate cause for dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness
of faculty members in their professional capacities as teachers or researchers.
Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic
freedom or other rights of American citizens;
16
• The faculty member will be permitted to have an academic adviser and counsel of
the faculty member's choice;
• A verbatim record of the hearing or hearings will be taken, and a copy will be made
available to the faculty member without cost, at the faculty member's request;
• The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution and will be
satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole;
• The faculty member and the administration will have the right to confront and cross-
examine all witnesses.
100. Despite incorporating the 1940 Statement in its Faculty Manual and, accordingly,
Weisgerber fell far short of these standards both substantively and procedurally.
101. St. Edward’s failed to provide a statement of the charges against Professor
102. St. Edward’s failed to provide Professor Weisgerber an opportunity to appear at and
103. St. Edward’s failed to provide Professor Weisgerber the right to cross examine the
104. St. Edward’s failed to provide Professor Weisgerber with an adequate record of the
105. St. Edward’s used dismissal to restrain Professor Weisgerber’s academic freedom
106. St. Edward’s shifted the burden of proof to Professor Weisgerber, lodging the
vaguest of accusations and putting the burden on Professor Weisgerber to disprove them.
17
107. As such, St. Edward’s breached Section 2.9.2 of the Faculty Manual, which was part
of the terms of Professor Weisgerber’s employment contract with Defendant, as well as the 1940
108. Section 2.9.2 begins with the statement “The fundamental purposes of the university
identified in the mission statement require full commitment to academic freedom.” Thus the mission
academic freedom.
109. The second paragraph directly quotes the AAUP’s 1940 statement on academic
freedom, stating that “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not
to further the interests of the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good
depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.” It is clear from this statement that
even if Professor Weisgerber had wished to “launch a campaign against university decisions,” that
it was her right (and responsibility) to do so. According to this paragraph, utilizing her academic
freedom in support of her students, colleagues, and department, trumps even the University itself.
110. According to paragraph 3, academic freedom “carries with it duties correlative with
University Professors and American Association of Colleges).” If these “duties” and “rights” were
not intended to fall in line with the 1940’s AAUP statement, then the statement should not have
111. Section 2.8.6 of the Faculty Manual provides that if a negative periodic review is
given, tenured faculty “may be terminated in accord with the procedures set forth in Section 2.5.6.2.”
18
112. The procedures in Section 2.5.6.2 require that a tenured faculty member be given a
performance improvement plan and two years to correct any deficiencies before termination is
considered.
113. If the school committee gives a negative review, it is required to hold a conference
with the faculty member and discuss the committee’s findings and assist the faculty member in
116. Professor Weisgerber was terminated less than two years after the first ever
complaint about her alleged conduct arose. Her termination could therefore not have been based on
a “continuing string of unprofessional and disruptive behavior dating back a number of years” as
discuss any committee’s findings and formulate an improvement plan to correct any alleged
deficiencies.
118. Defendant thus breached Sections 2.8.6 and 2.5.6.2 of the Faculty Manual.
119. In the January 9, 2018 termination letters, St. Edward’s represented that Professor
Weisgerber was “terminated for just cause pursuant to Section 2.8.4 of the Faculty Manual.”
120. Section 2.8.4 of the Faculty Manual sets forth the species of “cause” sufficient to
121. The list of offenses listed in Section 2.8.4 are quite severe, including: “professional
19
responsibilities; failure to fulfill contractual obligations as set forth in this Faculty Manual;
scandal; or continued disrespect or disregard for the mission and goals of the university.”
122. Of these offenses, the termination letters list only one as the cause for Professor
Weisgerber’s termination: “continued disrespect and disregard for the mission and goals of the
university.”
Presidential Excellence Grant awards—grants specifically awarded by St. Edward’s to faculty who
“add to the reputation of St. Edward’s University in fulfillment of its long-term mission.”
chair—3 months after the alleged misconduct against that same chair took place—specifically
126. By failing to abide by the standards set forth in Section 2.8.4 and by ignoring the
provisions of Sections 2.8.6 and 2.5.6.2, St. Edward’s breached its commitments under the Faculty
Manual.
127. Section 2.5.4.5 of the Faculty Manual requires the Dean’s evaluations of a faculty
128. On August 29, 2017, Dean Sharon Nell added a page to Professor Weisgerber’s
2016-17 positive annual chair performance review and uploaded it to the University’s computer
20
system without informing Professor Weisgerber of the changes. The page Dean Nell added consisted
of an abridged and slightly altered account of the September 23, 2016 meeting.
129. Professor Weisgerber was not notified that Dean Nell had changed her evaluation in
this fashion, nor was the altered evaluation forwarded to Professor Weisgerber.
130. St. Edward’s thus breached Section 2.5.4.5 of its Faculty Manual.
131. Sr. Donna Jurick confirmed on two occasions that no one questioned Professor
Weisgerber and Butler’s teaching and research abilities and record; that their colleagues liked them
as friends; that they are highly talented and highly skilled in their field; that they are considered
132. Similarly, President George Martin in prepared remarks to the Faculty Collegium on
May 4, 2018 and in further email with the faculty on August 1, argued that Professor Weisgerber
and Butler’s terminations were not based on “the content of their speech on matters having to do
with the university or its policies” and that “these two cases do not involve issues of academic
133. Contrary to those claims, the termination letter specifically alleges that Professor
Weisgerber engaged in “a campaign of disruption and disrespect for university decisions.” The
termination letter also lists several concerns about university policies expressed verbally by
Professors Weisgerber, particularly policies Dean Sharon Nell was imposing exclusively on the
134. At a May 4, 2018 Faculty Collegium, President Martin made a number of false and
21
135. President Martin stated that Professor Weisgerber was terminated for “a documented
136. Not only was there no pattern of bullying behavior and intimidation, but no such
137. President Martin further stated that Professor Weisgerber had been “dismissed after
139. To the contrary, as described above, St. Edward’s never gave Professor Weisgerber
examples of her allegedly improper behavior, and failed to abide by the counseling procedures set
140. Professor Weisgerber never acknowledged having been counseled on her behavior.
141. These false statements were made by Dr. Martin in front of all of Professor
Weisgerber’s erstwhile St. Edward’s colleagues. On May 22, 2018, the minutes containing the
President’s defamatory statements were emailed to all contracted faculty members at St. Edward’s
University.
142. In an August 1, 2018 email to all faculty and a subsequent August 2nd Facebook
Workplace post visible to the entire St. Edward’s community, Dr. Martin repeated these false and
defamatory statements, claiming “these two cases do not involve issues of academic freedom at the
university. Rather, the cases of Professor Butler and Professor Weisgerber are based upon
interpersonal behavioral issues with fellow faculty and staff and a failure to modify behavior despite
143. Professor Weisgerber was never counseled by Dean Nell, let alone by two deans.
22
144. While President Martin seems to have dropped the bullying charges and no longer
claims that these charges have been documented, Professor Weisgerber never engaged in a
145. In his October 25, 2018 email and Facebook post, Dr. Martin further alleges that
“Their pattern of intimidation and personal attacks is evident in the [AAUP] report, falsely
disparaging well-respected faculty members such as Dr. Richard Bautch and members of the
Communication Department.” Nothing in the AAUP Report disparages Dr. Bautch as President
Martin alleges.
146. In a coordinated response to the AAUP’s Report, Senate President Lorelei Ortiz sent
CAUSES OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
147. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the
148. Defendant materially breached its obligations to Plaintiff under its contract with her,
149. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s failure to abide by its obligations.
150. As a result of Defendant’s failure to abide by its obligations, Plaintiff has been forced
151. Plaintiff has served written demand pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
38.001 upon Defendant either prior to or concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, so that upon
trial of this case more than thirty days after the delivery of such letter, Plaintiff will be entitled to
23
DEFAMATION
152. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above
153. Defendant slandered Plaintiff by willfully and knowingly publishing false statements
that were believed by third parties and had a negative impact on Plaintiff’s career and life.
154. The defamatory and disparaging statements that Defendant, its officers, agents,
155. Plaintiff’s reputation has sustained actual damages by the defamatory and
156. Plaintiff has suffered general damages by reason of injury to character and reputation,
emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
157. Plaintiff has suffered special damages in the form loss of earning capacity, loss of
past and future income, loss of employment, loss of tenure, loss of six years of work toward
JURY DEMAND
160. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 195, Plaintiff requests that Defendant
discloses, within 50 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule
194.2.
24
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be cited to appear and
answer, and that final judgment be granted against Defendant awarding Plaintiff the following:
• Costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys’
fees, expert witness fees, and other costs;
• Attorneys’ fees pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001;
25