Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00415-SLR Document 79-3 Filed O3/14/2006 Page 1 01*°’®¤ I
LEXSEE EDFIE US DIST LEXIS ATE!
DR. KATHLEEN CARTER, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY, DR.
WILLIAM B. DELAUDER, PRESIDENT, DR. JOHNNY TOLLIYER. DEAN
JACOUELYN HE GORUM, DR. ALETA HANNAH aud DELAWARE STATE
UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEE-Yrs Defendants.
t:..·s. ria. 99-·ti·4E dtvts
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE D[S`I`RIt.'."I` OF DELAWARE
Edd} LES. Dist. LEXIS 4?El'
March 21. 2[II}-ls Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Agiirnaed by Carisa v. Dei. remaining claims sheuid preceed. Subsequent te the tele-
Srnie Unite, 2t5|Ii'.i US App. LEXIS ?2.i'9 {Ed Cir. Del.. c¤:rrrference.the patties agreed that t'lte§ I'.-TS] claim is unt
A]·n·_ t6_ 2003} viable in light ef the ceu rt's ruling en the Title 'v'II claim.
[*2] {D,]. 14].] Hewever, tlte pa.tties centinue te dispute
DISPOSITIONL [*l] Summary jutigrttertt ENTER-EO the validity ef tlte ti 19S3 claim.
E;§°r2L£;;h;IE:$l;i;iT: gsgtmanm Un the ii wm and I The delenrlarrts request an erder enteringjudginent in
` their Favuren the § i9E3 claims. r{D.l. 143, ELI. I45.§i The
defendants argue that the plairtti1’l"earir1nt establish the el-
CDUHSEL F KATHLEEN CARTER Dr ]n,mH,|,_ emcnts ci her First Amendment retaiiatien claim under
L gr . S lh mp g min £pFm_l ` § IEEE because her speech was lterl. pretested and it was
u?_1ilI€FCc ‘DEmmn' mi ' xt S ‘ DW` net a sribstantial facter in the tenure deeisintt. Tlte de-
1 mmgmm ‘ fendants further submit that even it` the plaintiffs speech
_ was preteeted and tltat speerzlt was a substantial t`acter i1t
G their decisien te deny Iter tenure, ether pemtissible-faeters
, suppert their deetstnn te deny tenure te the platuttfi The
HANNAH, Dr., DELAWARE STATE UNWERSITY I . . . . . _ .
_ ._ _ p autttff argttes that thc claim is valid because questrens
BOARD OF TRLISTEES, defecndants. Jnhn D. Balaguen fi. . h . _ . bch. d h d . .
whim EL wmjnmg Wumingmm DE e act remain as tie t e metrsauen rn t e ecrsrerr.
’ ’ ` The ceurt agrees with the defendant that tl·re§ l9S3 elatttts
_ , shntrid be dismissed. Theeefere. the ccurt will errter an cr-
§gLLT`IJE§A$f L§CQI;]Eé"I';LI,Ii`qI;E§E_"{ der dismissing beth the § l9Sl and ij 15*53 claims against
assis: Clnistian J. strrgeeste. Wirite sr tviitiaars, lim 'J°f°"°”‘“”S‘
wit'“i“g"”“* DE tt srantnattn mt REVIEW nl
Jgggi-gw M` SlEEt’ UNITED STATES nl Tlte facts et`this case are t"uIlysct ibrthirrthe
' ceurt's previeus memerandum and nrdecr and will
OHN]DHBY= Gmgury Mmmm Slam ttet he repeated here. {See D.[. I42 at 4-T.)
. i'il
Drttsttttwtr
Summary judgment is apprepriate where there are ne
MEMURSNDUM AND ORDER genuine issues cf material fact and the nteving party is
(in Febnrary ET, EtJttE, the cnurt issued a mernnran- entitled te a judgment as a matter eiiaw. See red. ii'. Civ
num and enter nispcsirtg at all cf the pIaintili·"s claims P 56(eu. A fact is material if it might affect the eutceme
in It-re ease except ner § 1931 and § 1933 claims against efthe case, and an issue is genuine iitite evidence is such
the indie-innst deterrdanrs in their afticial capacities. r[D.l. that u reasenable factfinder eeuld return a verdict in fever
142 at E9-Eli.] On Febmary 23, EODE. the ecurt held eIthenerrrnevent.Ir1*e inre Headquarters Badge. inc., J3
tt teleeenference wherein the parties discussed huw the E`3et'6?4, tiliii (id Cir: 1993) i[citingAnn'ersnn ti Liberty

Case 1:04-cv-00415-SLR Document 79-3 Filed 03/14/2006 Page 2 EEE?
2lIH]2 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 422l. *3
tohhy; hre. 422 U..SZ 242. 248. ti'! L. Eat 2d 292. ltlcl S. The patties do not dispute that Carter made certain
Cr. 2393 (IEEE}. when deciding a motion for summary unfavorable remarks about [J·SU's scheduling policies to
judgrncnt, the court must evaluate the evidence in the her class. Instrttetots remarks about university policies.
light most favorable to the rtonrrtoving party anti draw all even those critical of the univcmity. are entitled to First
reasonable inferences in that party's tavotz See Ptrcirrr v. rtmendrnettt protection. See Eir·hmon rz i.ma't'a-no Store
Marget;. I93 E3rf2r5·t‘i, 222 (3o'C.`ir: 2999}. The nonmoving Uhftieterrry Bel r.y"Tn.r.sreat. ,592 E2:} I ft?-r, Hold (5th Ctr:
party, however, mustdemonstrate the existence ofa mate- 2929) [finding that district court erred in holding that pro-
rial tact- not mere allegations-supplying sufficient evi- fessor's statements criticizing univcrsity"s scheduling and
dence forarcasonablejury tofind for the nonmovartt. See curriculttrn were outside the scope of First Amendment
Olson tt Gencm! Elec. Aerospace, J9! Fist 942, 95f (3a' pnotcctionl. Thus. the court linds that the plaintiffs [*6]
Cir: t'99t5) (citation omitted]-. To raise a genuine issue of speech was protected.
merit ire the reimererl "·r=e' at l*il me- ire rrr stri this tts its its r eeeh as t tran-
for item. each piece ofevidence proffered by the movant . . . `. li . .
. , . . , . tial or motivating factor tn the tenure decision. A sub-
but simply most exceed dte mere scintilla [of evidence} . . .
standard ,, PE] ., FGA S urkgj Mc U Demrm _ stanttal or motivating factor nccd not bc the only factor.
` mzzu upgmi `i’ ,. ` .g Rather.asubstantialormotivatingfactor isone that played
Delaware C`ri.. 998 E`2a' 2224, !L'39 r'3a'(.tr: f99.i‘,l {ella- ., his . 1 I ,,. h d R. _
mms omitted] Tha mnmownfs cvidgnm llwmr mum some so tantra ro e in t c ertston rna ing process.
. . I . ` . ’ Sec Suppan rt Dadoreta. 293E`3a`22r5`. 239 (3r:t`Cir: 2999}.
rr Sitieiert tr r ¤=e==·rrl=·'vrr ··—* ire ir tert rtree tt its resent case sm at tts. oetaurtcr stmt.
party. given the applicable burden of proof See Anderson, P ‘ . .
JH.? U S at 249-50 H2 ted that her classroom statements were considered in the
' ` ` tenure process. Accepting Carters allegation as true. the
. . rtfrlsthtthd `ttte tt t rrtt
,,__;$_j;*{gaglgegjrjgmggstiggtagggr felt tl'.} tzotirsrismiiiii.i1iar;lriiaiidiricrl;iSp9ieia1iisi
. . P ` .` ’ . E a substantial or motivating factor in the defendants deci-
this matter a motron for summary judgment ts ap- gm] mmm hcrtcnurc
propriate for dniee reasons. First, since summary I if `
judgment motions have already bcccn filed in this Since Carter has demonstrated that iter protected
ease, the plaintiff is on notice that her claims may speech was a motivating tactor in the tenure decision,
be dismissed in this manner. Second. the defen- the defendants must demonstrate by a preponderance of
rlarrts're;-narlrs alter the strrrtmaryjttdgmetit motion the evideitce they would have taken the sa.rne action in
indicate that they seelrjudgtrtent in tlteir favor on the absence ofthe protected coitduct. See ra'. rr.r235. The
the § l9S3 claims, [See D.l. Isl} at 2 {noting that defendants have carried this burden. The court noted in
defendants will "provide a response and applica- its previous order that Cartcr's spccch was one of four
tion for entry ofjudgmenr" after the plaintiffwrites factors that motivated the tenure decision. {D. [*7] I.
to the cottrtjj, Finally, the plaintiff argues that the l42 at l l.l· The other three factors were her service as
oottrt cannot dismiss her claims because issues of department chair. her service on the l"··lC.·*t.TE. committee.
fact remain. t{D.l. Irl-4 at 2,4.] {arguing that claims and her neutral evaluations. {Ia.} n3 None of these cott-
should go to jury}. Therefore, summary jttdgment sideratiorts were related to Carter's speech. A t.tttivi.·‘a‘slt'y‘
is appropriate. may deny tenure for any non-discrlt‘nit1atot‘y‘ reason. See
Porare rt fsioor. 865 l'i`2o'r5`2.i'.. S2F'(orlr Cir: i`9·!i9,l ["'The
` ·`ty may dismiss u non—tenured professor for any
l-5] xaglociihlor no reason and the
. . professor has no recourse
·¤- emitter tltftttltlttfttstlttalttttttttstsiitdftt
In orderto establish that she was dettied tenure in retal- evaluation and her performance on the NC.-*rTE committee
i.ation for exercising her First Amendment rights, Carter were unrelated to her speech. they were directly related to
must first demonstrate that her speech was protected. See hcr job performance. See Coors v. Pierre, 899 .l'i`2al' 225.
Green it Philadelphia Hearing Author-try. rtl.? I-T3a` S32. 233 {Sth Cie 2999} [noting that the reasons for denial of
shi (id Cie i992.l. She must then establish that her pro- tenure "[borel at least some relation to [the professors]
teetad speech was a substantial or motivating factor be- effectiveness as a faculty member"}. See also Gerltarr
hind the alleged retaliation. See ia'. Finally. iflflarter can it Hayes. Ji'? ffial 329. 322 (Elf? Cie 2999) lflfltllttg l.l1iitt
agtahlish thas; two elements, the harden will thetn shift to plaintiffsjob performance was inadequate and she would
the rlefentlants to demonstrate that the same aetzion wottld have been denicd tenure in the absence of ber speech}.
have heen tairen iftlte speeclt. had not occurred. See ia'. Carter's neutral evaluation and allegedly poor NCATE
service [*S] establish that her perfonrtance was. at times,

Case 1:04-cv-00415-SLR Qggglrgent 79-3 Filed 03/14/2006 Page 3 0l’¤.B°3
tl . .Drst. LEXIS 47·‘2l, *S
marginal. Thus, the factual reeerd supperts a finding that is suflleieirt. Sine: the ceurt finds that the deeisiern
there were sufficient greunds te deny Carter tenure in the weulel have been the sarne, Carter"s argument en
absence ef her speech. this peittt. ls rejeeted.
n3 The eeurt will net censider Carter*s serviee na The mud rcwnlly hcld limi mz Elm] wm
as department ehair fer the reasens stated in Lhe EE;Ei3;gfntlsglagn:cng;nri;I;;:t;l;I;F?;¤;a5;l2l¥?
'"°”'°l"‘ '“°'“°'”'“"l“'“‘ {Sm Di 142 et mi eat. rests stirs, na. an-sssrervrst, ses: rrr.
3S9I3e' {D. Del. Mar. ll. 2002}. This ease is dis»
Carter argues that the eeurt sheuld deny summary Iinguishablc frern Springer, hewever. In Springer.
judgment because there are issttescf fact regarding DSU‘s there were several areas cf centested feet. In
metivatien ferderrying tenure. Hewever, Carter never pre- the present case, as previeusly explained, Carter
vided any facts te rebut the assertierns that her cvaluatierts dees net dispute t.l1c eutceme-detemtinative facts.
were neutral and that her perfermanee en the NCATE `l`hereI`e·re. the eetrrt finds that. altlteriglt summary
cemmittee was allegedly inadequate. rrr} Thus. CEIIEI has jttdgfrrent was net appmpriate in [email protected]·1·ger, it is ap-
failed tn create a genuine issue ef material fact en these prepriate in this ease.
peints as is her burden. Therefere. there is ne impediment
rn granting summary judgment in raver et` the defendants , I U
en this claim. 115 ne [ ]
n4 Indeed, rather than disputing the feet that wl CUNCLUSIUN
her evalttatiens were neutral, Carter attempted te Fer all efthc feregeing reasens, the ceurt will grant
use this fact as pmef ef Dr. Harrnah's raelal bias summary judgment in faver efthe defendants en. the §
against hecr. ISE] and § l9S3 claims.
I'?]
NOW. THEREFORE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED diat:
n5 Carter argues that the defendants cannet l. Summary judgment be and hereby is
elaim they weruld have terminated her en ether ENTERED in [aver eftlre individual defen-
greunds because DeLarrder did net knew abeut dants en the § IBS] and § l,'5|·B3 elsims in
hetr evalttatiens er her allegedly peer NCATE per- Ceunts Il and Ill.
fennttnee at the time he made his initial negative
tenure recemrnenttsrticn. The eetrrr rejects this ar- 2. The clerk shall rinse this case.
gument. The law en retaliatien dees net state that
the pretected speech earmet he censideret1— ir enly Dated; Ivlarch 21, 2rllJ2
requires preef that the defendants' deeislen weuid
have been the same in the absence ef the speeeh. GTEEDTF M` SEM
Thus, if DeI..auder‘s decisien weuld have remained UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
d1e sarne in the absence ef Carte·r‘s cemments, it

Case 1:04-cv-00415-SLR

Document 79-3

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00415-SLR

Document 79-3

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00415-SLR

Document 79-3

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 3 of 3