taylor university lawsuittaylor university lawsuit

Sept. 28, 2015). WebProfessor in the Music department at Taylor University. 10) July 30, 2012: Taylor President Habecker officially denies tenure and Whipple's employment is terminated (DE 42-3, p. 28). 6-9. By Michael Wines. On the other hand, Judge DeGuilio's discussion of this issue which he includes in a footnote is dicta, since he concluded that the issue was not a dispositive one in that case. Now, courts and litigants find themselves crawling around in the weeds arguing about "sub-issues," such as whether the "similarly situated" employees a plaintiff points to are even fair "comparators" in the first place. After seeking leave of court to do so, Whipple filed a sur-response (DE 73) and Taylor filed a sur-reply (DE 75). Id. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) Attorneys for an adjunct art professor said Tuesday she is suing the Minnesota university that dismissed her after a Muslim student objected to depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in a global art course, while the university admitted to a misstep and plans to hold public conversations about academic freedom. From the time he filed his first EEOC charge Whipple maintained that he was subjected to continuing incidents of discriminatory treatment and that "[t]he problems began in October 2006[.]" In 2016, the It is at this point that the argument over the racial make-up of Taylor's student body and faculty flies off the rails. of Educ. This portion of Defendant's document, therefore, is irrelevant." The Plaintiff's first motion to strike (DE 58) is MOOT; the Defendant's motion to strike (DE 61) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Plaintiff's second motion to strike (DE 67) is MOOT. Id., pp. Whipple argues that based on this, "a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the Defendant's replacement of Robertson by Barber increased Whipple's work load enough for it to have created a materially adverse job action." 2 min read. and that Muchiri's first two applications never made it that far, meaning that she "did not formally apply for tenure with the FPC until January 2009." See Bedi Affidavit (DE 42-7), 16. The parties fail to acknowledge this distinction, which admittedly can be a fine one, and that failure renders many of their arguments toothless. Whipple "successfully appealed the denial of his promotion; however, he experienced retaliation and continued race related issues throughout the year." Taylors lawsuit cites this as evidence of the arbitrary criteria of the DBE program. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Id., 8. Id., pp. However, neither the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties," id., 477 U.S. at 247, 106 S.Ct. Logan v. Kautex Textron North America, 259 F.3d 635, 641 (7th Cir.2001) (quoting Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 126 F.3d 1010, 1013 (7th Cir.1997)). Whipple could just as easily have objected to the first paragraph of page 17 of the exhibit, which discusses Taylor's faculty orientation program, and which has no relevance at all to this case; or, he could have raised the same relevance objection to a paragraph on the next page that summarizes the requirements for class field trips. A group of college professors sued Texas today for banning TikTok on state Adi has covered video games, biohacking, and more for The Verge since 2011. According to Whipple's own summary of the facts, there exists no reason for Whipple's delayed filing of the charges. Based on all of the above, Whipple contends that he has pleaded a hostile environment claim, is entitled to invoke the continuing violation doctrine due to the recurring nature of the discrimination he alleges he suffered, and the debate about a 180-day limitation period versus a 300-day period is therefore much ado about nothing. This does not serve as an excuse for lawyers to file briefs in federal court that contain improper citation form, careless grammatical errors, unnecessary and visually obnoxious typographical tricks, or illogical or irrelevant arguments; but it does help explain why parties often file such poorly written briefs. Again, Whipple cites several cases that he claims hold the opposite that the 300-day period applies even if a complainant does not initiate his charge with a state agency. O'Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). WebThere goes $1500 down the drain. 2000e, et seq., on the basis of his race and in retaliation for his complaints about discrimination. 13-14). Rashmi Gupta. Even accepting the fact that Whipple and Muchiri, both African-Americans, were subjected to a tenure review process that differed from the norm (a disputed fact, at least as to Muchiri, but not a material one), this piece of Whipple's factual mosaic does not save his race claim, and so the motion to strike Jones's second affidavit is moot.5. (citing Allen v. International Truck and Engine Corp., 2013 WL 1332071, *1 (S.D.Ind. WebTaylor responded that she was doing well and enthusiastically described the development of and plans for her gym. 136-137. Weighing evidence and making credibility decisions are jury functions, and it is not appropriate for a judge to assume those functions when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Laniers lawsuit claimed Harvard profits off the images and asked that the university turn them over and pay unspecified damages. In any event, the court did not consider the challenged text and neither party disputes the tenure procedure that applied to Whipple, so this argument is also moot.4. This is just one example of the many, very specific items of evidence that the parties are battling over in their motions to strike. LAS CRUCES, New Mexico (KTSM) A lawsuit was filed Wednesday in the 3rd District of New Mexico by the New Mexico State basketball players at the center of the hazing allegations that sent the universitys basketball into a tailspin earlier this year.William Deuce Benjamin Jr., his father, William Benjamin, and former NMSU Id., pp. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. A Taylor University professor with Fort Wayne ties has resigned after multiple "significant and credible allegations of serious misconduct," according to a Id., 17. The Taylors filed the lawsuit in June 2016, seeking more than $4 million in damages from the university, which they claimed was the amount they would have Complaint (DE 1), p. 2, 9. Other than noting that the people who reviewed her tenure application were all Caucasian, Muchiri does not expressly state that her tenure review process was tainted by racial animus. On the day before Dr. Whipple's promotion hearing, Dr. Robertson entered Dr. Whipple's classroom between classes and wrote `Samford University' on the board and suggested to Dr. Whipple that he apply there." In 2008, several current and former employees filed a civil rights lawsuit against the university detailing complaints of discrimination and harassment against Rhodes v. Illinois Dept. In short, Whipple observes that the number of African-American students and faculty members at Taylor is low, which he apparently believes forms a basis on which the court can draw an inference of discriminatory intent. The court disagrees for several reasons. 3, 2001)). As Judge Wood wrote in her concurrence: Id. When temporal proximity is one among several tiles in an evidentiary mosaic depicting retaliatory motive, however, "[s]uspicious timing can sometimes raise an inference of a causal connection." See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 542-43, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 1916, 68 L. Ed. A "continuing violation is one that could not reasonably have been expected to be made the subject of a lawsuit when it first occurred because its character as a violation did not become clear until it was repeated during the limitations period." Shederick WHIPPLE, D.M.A., Plaintiff, 2004)). WebFor Immediate Release November 20, 2014 TAYLOR & RING FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST NOTRE DAME ACADEMY, LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY AND FORMER TEACHER ELIZABETH BREWER FOR SEXUAL ABUSE AND NEGLIGENCE-- Lawsuit alleges that Notre Dame Academy and Loyola Marymount University were negligent in On October 15, 2010, Whipple applied for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. These include: "(1) evidence of suspicious timing, (2) evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently, and (3) evidence that the employer's proffered reason for the adverse employment action was pretextual." Jones states that "Muchiri's confusion is that she does not realize or understand that an application for tenure is not a formal application until it goes to the Faculty Personnel Committee[.]" LOUISVILLE, Ky. Tamika Palmer's hands were shaking. That time line is as follows: 1) November 5, 2010: Whipple files a written grievance with the University alleging racial harassment by Robertson (DE 56-17); 2) February 28, 2011: Whipple writes to Bedi and Habecker appealing his promotion denial and raising complaints about race issues (DE 56-25); 3) June 30, 2011: Whipple writes to Habecker and others to voice several concerns, including issues related to race (DE 56-26); 4) October 7, 2011: Whipple files his first EEOC charge; 5) January 19, 2012: Whipple files a written grievance (raising many issues, including race issues) (DE 56-28); 6) January 31, 2012: Whipple files a written grievance objecting to his tenure review process (and again referencing race issues) (DE 42-6, p. 80); 7) February 28, 2012: Faculty tenure committee votes to deny Whipple's tenure application (DE 42-6, p. 81); 8) March 16, 2012: Harrison recommends denying tenure (DE 42-6, p. 83); 9) March 27, 2012: Whipple files a written grievance concerning his tenure review process and reiterating his concerns about racial discrimination and retaliation (DE 56-29); and. Taylor devotes only one page of its reply brief to this issue. That testand (citing Koch v. CGM Group, Inc., 2001 WL 392523 (S.D.Ind. 20-21). In this motion the Plaintiff asks the court to strike "Defendant's Exhibit 1, `Second Affidavit of Thomas Jones,' with attachments A-L." This affidavit and its attachments were filed with Taylor's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, and Whipple argues that they are thus untimely "because the Defendant failed to file them with the Defendant's by [sic] its dispositive motion deadline or with its motion for summary judgement [sic]." The court concludes that Whipple has demonstrated that his decision to file his first charge with the EEOC in October 2011 was reasonable under the facts of this case and, consequently, that the continuing violation doctrine applies. at 565 (citing Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d at 860). Wood, concurring). Harris v. FedEx Freight, 110 F.Supp.3d at 816. Taylor v. University of Utah Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary In this medical malpractice action, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of Granted, there are many instances in the record, as in Whipple's Complaint and his pleadings in opposition to summary judgment, where he makes obvious conclusory, speculative, or self-serving statements (the one mentioned above, where "he identifies" retaliation as a motivating factor in his termination, is just one example). Bob-Maunuel v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 10 F.Supp.3d 854, 873 (N.D.Ill.2014) (quoting Krchnavy v. Limagrain Genetics Corp., 294 F.3d 871, 875 (7th Cir.2002)). On May 20, 2020, the occupants of a neighboring apartment filed a lawsuit against Hankison, Cosgrove and Mattingly. Plaintiff's Reply in Support of First Motion to Strike, p. 4. 15-16. pp.118-19. Nowhere in these pleadings does Whipple explain just what these extra duties entailed. Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Motion to Strike, p. 5. 1-2, and Charge of Discrimination, Nov. 9, 2012, Id., p. 3. When inadmissible evidence, such as conclusory statements and hearsay, are removed from Whipple's pleadings, he is left with the following evidence to support his hostile environment claim: 1) the alleged statement by Robertson that Whipple was hired only because of his race and Whipple's allegation that he experienced frequent "professional disagreements" with Robertson during his time at Taylor; 2) the fact that his promotion application was initially denied;9. The court is dubious of this argument, but like so many other issues in this case, this one is not relevant to the court's analysis or conclusion. A jury in Houston took just a few hours on Wednesday to find Baylor University and three former football players not responsible for the alleged sexual 2004)). 86, 746 F.3d 835, 839 (7th Cir.2014)). At the time of Dr. Jones' extra assignment, it was already the `busy season' of the Opera program and the additional work created needless hardship on Dr. Whipple, because of his responsibilities in connection to the upcoming performance of the opera The Majic Flute." (DE 56-1, p. of Wisconsin Bd. 2d 420 (1981). Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 7) paragraphs three, 16 and 17 of the affidavit of Stephen Bedi, Professor of Higher Education and Provost Emeritus of Taylor University, which Whipple claims contain inadmissible hearsay (and which summarize those third-party statements made to Bedi regarding the incident between Whipple and the student). (DE 56-4, pp. 1. Fortunately for him, that is sufficient to survive summary judgment under the facts of this case. OKC Health Sciences Center Campus. 2012); see also, Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. Faculty Handbook under the rule of completeness so as to not mislead the Court. 3-4. Dist. MUS119. Taylor argues that "rather than presenting a compelling mosaic of the evidence, [Whipple] attempts the prototypical `spaghetti against the wall' litigation tactic, serving up a bevy of inadmissible self-serving statements and conclusions with the hope that one or two strands stick long enough to survive summary judgment." at 255, 106 S.Ct. No. Plaintiff's Response, pp. The accuser was Crystal Mangum, a student at North Carolina Central First published on Fri 10 Dec 2021 07.37 EST. By Daniel Kreps. (Id. Erika Simpson, Associate Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer. ); 3) He "alleges a pattern of continuing conduct related to race discrimination." Mindful of the fact that both sides expended a great deal of effort to turn these evidentiary disputes into a needlessly over-complicated bucket of worms (although Taylor wins the gold star in that regard for its brief in support of its motion to strike), the court will endeavor to clear some of the trees so the forest once again becomes visible. WebAdmissions Location & Contact Information. 15-16. That is because, as the court noted above, Taylor insists that the denial does not meet the legal definition of an "adverse employment action." with more than $1 billion in taxpayer dollars as a violation of the Taylor Force Act, named after a Vanderbilt University student and former army officer stabbed Defendant's Motion to Strike (DE 61), generally. The family of Pamela Turner, a Black woman who was killed by a Baytown police officer in May 2019, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court on April 8, 2021. Around a dozen fans traveled to LA to testify in The court will do its best to assess the merits of Taylor's motion for summary judgment according to the proper standard, which includes considering all relevant evidence submitted by both sides, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Whipple as the nonmovant, and determining whether Taylor is entitled to judgment in its favor or whether Whipple has presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that there are genuine material issues that can only be resolved by a jury. For the reasons discussed below, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (DE 41) is: DENIED as to the issue of the timeliness of the Plaintiff's claims; GRANTED as to the Plaintiff's race discrimination claim; and DENIED as to the Plaintiff's retaliation claim. Courts must also be mindful "that employment discrimination cases typically involve questions of intent and credibility," and resolution of those issues is the sole province of the jury. (Id., 21); 8) Whipple's application for tenure was denied on July 30, 2012, and "[i]n conjunction with denial of tenure, the University did not renew Dr. Whipple's contract thereby ending his employment at the conclusion of the 2012-2013 academic year." Id., 13. With regard to that single paragraph from Whipple's Statement of Genuine Issues, Taylor raises nine objections. Taylor University fired a longtime faculty member, Jim Spiegel, for among other things not adhering to the schools Life Together Covenant, a statement all of Trustees of the Univ. Dep't of Health and Family Svcs., 263 F.3d 673, 681 (7th Cir.2001). Jones v. United States, 529 U. S. 848, 858 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). (citing Bell v. Kathy Taylor, head coach of the Colgate University womens lacrosse team, is under scrutiny amidst allegations of extreme coaching tactics that some players claim have left them physically, emotionally and mentally It is also true, however, that "[t]here is of course nothing wrong with relying on self-serving statements to defeat summary judgment[,]" as long as those statements are based on admissible evidence. Taylor claims that since its proffered, nondiscriminatory reason for denying tenure, i.e., Whipple's collegiality issues ultimately did him in, was raised "as early as 2008," it preceded any formal harassment complaint that Whipple ever submitted. Jimmie Allen is the subject of a new lawsuit alleging he sexually assaulted his manager over the course of 18 months. However, as the Seventh Circuit has explained, the terms "direct" and "indirect" are "somewhat misleading," and "[t]he distinction between the two avenues of proof is `vague.'" Whipple argues that "[t]here is no evidence the document is based upon the firsthand knowledge of the author, and therefore it is inadmissible hearsay[.]" In that charge, Whipple made the following pertinent statements and allegations: 1) He indicates that he is filing the charge based on race discrimination and retaliation. The problem is that the parties use those terms so loosely and apply them so broadly that they end up essentially challenging every bit of evidence the other side has submitted. Therefore, after drawing all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the non-movant, if genuine doubts remain and a reasonable fact-finder could find for the party opposing the motion, summary judgment is inappropriate. Twenty players have left the Colgate women's lacrosse team since Kathy Taylor took over as coach in 2019. Whipple's professorship was a seven-year tenure track position. It was in response to Muchiri's affidavit that Taylor presented the second Jones affidavit, in which the dean claims that Muchiri was mistaken about the tenure process. Dr. Harrison noted several issues that would need to be addressed in the tenure review process[.]" (Id.). See id., 2005 WL 3088445, at *4 ("evidence of `systemic disparate treatment is relevant to and probative of the issue of pretext even when it is insufficient to support a pattern and practice disparate treatment case.'") The Plaintiff, Shederick Whipple, filed a response and supporting memorandum in opposition to the motion (DE 56, 57), and Taylor filed a reply brief (DE 62). In the present case, Whipple bases his hostile work environment claim on a few incidents that, when examined objectively, do not rise anywhere near the level necessary to sustain such a claim. Defendant's Reply, p. 4. He presents the affidavit of Muchiri, another African-American professor at Taylor, who states that she was denied tenure twice, in 2006 and 2007, before being granted tenure after her third application in 2009. The University of Michigan has agreed to a $490 million settlement with hundreds of people who say they were sexually assaulted by Dr. Robert E. Anderson, the former sports doctor at the school. Taylor characterizes Whipple's Complaint as nothing more than a compilation of unfounded allegations and conclusory statements, quotes part of the holding from Anderson, and then argues that Whipple cannot survive the motion for summary judgment because he is relying solely on "mere allegations" to oppose it. The allegations included in Whipple's charges of discrimination and in his Complaint make it clear that he has pled a hostile environment claim against Taylor and invoked the continuing violation doctrine. 2000e-2(a)(1)). Whipple maintains that under Indiana law, a complainant can file a charge of discrimination with either the EEOC or a state or local agency, and that the 300-day limitations period applies in either instance. The temporal proximity between Whipple's complaints and the adverse employment event raises a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. Defendant's Reply, pp. Taylor does not list the initial denial of Whipple's promotion as one of the facts supporting his retaliation claim. That notwithstanding, Taylor filed a second affidavit from Jones, along with attachments, not "to gain a tactical or procedural advantage " but rather "to clarify the record" with regard to statements made by Dr. Muchiri in her affidavit. Id., 23. The Baylor University sexual assault scandal was the result of numerous allegations of and convictions for sexual and non-sexual assaults committed by Baylor University students, mostly players in the Baylor Bears football team. Case Summary. For now, the only issue before the court is whether either of Whipple's claims withstand summary judgment. Watch CNN Instead, it paints with such a broad brush that it ends up challenging almost every statement Whipple makes, as illustrated by Taylor's nine objections to a single paragraph of Whipple's opposing materials. It is true that a plaintiff cannot invoke the continuing violation doctrine in order to excuse the tardy filing of charges of discrimination. Evidence of the racial make-up of a defendant employer is generally only relevant (and, in fact, is part of a prima facie case) in disparate treatment cases. Accordingly, the court "`appl[ies] the summary judgment standard with special scrutiny to employment discrimination cases, which often turn on issues of intent and credibility.'" Swift first found herself sued by Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, writers of the song Playas Gon Play by the group 3LW. (quoting Lang v. Illinois Dep't of Children and Family Ser., 361 F.3d 416, 419 (7th Cir. In its reply brief, Taylor cites Helm v. Ancilla Domini College, 2012 WL 33018 (N.D.Ind. WebAt A Glance. Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir.2009) (citing Haywood v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 323 F.3d 524, 533 (7th Cir.2003) (inadmissible evidence will not overcome a motion for summary judgment)). (Full disclosure: Im not a big fan .) Arguments on Monday were largely procedural, and plaintiffs are requesting at least $2,500 in damages. Whipple's attempt to raise the specter of systemic discrimination at Taylor based on anecdotal evidence about the percentage of African-American professors and students fails for two reasons. The University claims that a plaintiff invoking the doctrine must show that: 1) he is complaining about a pattern of conduct; and 2) that he "`was reasonable not to perceive working conditions as intolerable until the acts of harassment had, through repetition or [accumulation], reached the requisite level of severity.'" 2014). In its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, Taylor contends that "in the eyes of Taylor, Whipple failed to appropriately address his collegiality and student conflict resolution issues by the time of his tenure application and as a result Taylor denied Whipple's tenure application. The parties' premise is correct in that "[a]dmissibility is the threshold question because a court may consider only admissible evidence in assessing a motion for summary judgment." All courses. Warning: this story contains graphic details of alleged sexual assaults. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer must "articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, at which point the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to submit evidence that the employer's explanation is pretextual." 14 and 17. See Shields Enterprises, Inc. v. First Chicago Corp., 975 F.2d 1290, 1294 (7th Cir.1992); Wolf v. City of Fitchburg, 870 F.2d 1327, 1330 (7th Cir.1989). Taylor also opposes Whipple's motion by arguing that many of the statements he seeks to exclude are not hearsay because they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Whipple's application for tenure was denied on July 30, 2012, and he contends it was "because of his race and/or his previous complaints of race discrimination." But once again, none of this evidence was relevant to the court's assessment of Taylor's motion for summary judgment, as will become clear when the court is finally able to get to that assessment. Taylor then argues that "the evidence is conclusive that `collegiality' stands as one of the key factors to be considered during the tenure review process and that Taylor raised Whipple's collegiality and student conflict resolution issues as early as 2008, well before he engaged in the alleged protected activity, e.g., his formal harassment complaint against Robertson and the filing of Charge 1."