Alva v. Tex. A&M Int'l Univ.
| Decision Date | 31 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-144 |
| Parties | GERARDO ALVA, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS A&M INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Plaintiff Gerardo Alva sued Defendant Texas A&M International University (TAMIU) for retaliation under Title IX. (Dkt. No. 1). Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity and that it fired Plaintiff for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 24). Plaintiff disputes Defendant's claims and argues in the alternative that any reason Defendant proffers is pretextual. (Dkt. No. 23). The Court has carefully considered all pleadings and relevant case law and for the reasons stated below GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 19).
Plaintiff began working at TAMIU in 2001 and became involved with the school's Title IX coordination and compliance efforts in 2009. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 8-9). After new Title IX guidance came out in 2011, Plaintiff actively revised the student handbook and internal university policies to provide a student-driven perspective todiscussions about and implementation of Title IX. (Id. at 10). His Title IX advocacy earned him praise and a promotion to associate vice president for student affairs and deputy Title IX coordinator. (Id. at 11, 13). Plaintiff's direct supervisor was the vice president of student success, Dr. Minita Ramirez. The ultimate responsibility for the Title IX program rested with the University's Title IX coordinator, Sandra Villanueva. (Id. at 11, 16, 27). Two people served directly under Plaintiff: the director of student affairs, Miguel Trevino, and associate director of student success services, San Juanita Perez. (Dkt. No. 19 at 7).
As associate vice president, Plaintiff oversaw the international programs, including study-abroad programs, and often traveled internationally. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 13). As deputy Title IX coordinator Plaintiff opened investigations into student complaints and, within five-business-days of receiving a student complaint, he assigned investigators. (Dkt. No. 19-4 at 34-37). Over winter break 2015-2016, two study abroad programs took place concurrently: one to India and one to Ireland. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 16). Plaintiff traveled with the group to India, and his trusted colleagues, Dr. Minita Ramirez and Miguel Trevino, accompanied the students to Ireland. (Id.). It was the sexual assault in Ireland that sparked the chain of events leading to this case. (Id. at 17).
On January 12, 2016, Ramirez and Trevino learned that a male student had sexually assaulted a female student in the early hours of that morning. (Dkt. No. 19-9 at 19). Both rushed to meet with the victim, who first spoke to Ramirez andthen gave a statement to Trevino.2 (Dkt. No. 19-5 at 23-24). Ramirez encouraged the victim to report the incident to Irish authorities and to call a family member, but she refused to do either. (Id.). Trevino then left to hear the male student's account while the victim stayed with Ramirez, finally falling asleep on the bed while Dr. Ramirez sat on the floor beside her all night. (Dkt. No. 19-5 at 26). Trevino reported the incident to San Juanita Perez, who immediately emailed a no-contact order to both the students, copying Plaintiff. (Dkt. Nos. 19-7 at 26-27; 20 at 3-4, 39-40).
The rest of the trip was a whirlwind of phone calls to Texas A&M attorneys, the TAMIU police department, Title IX coordinator and compliance officer, as well as other high-level administrators. Ramirez and Trevino were forced to waltz a delicate dance of respecting the 21-year-old victim's wishes, protecting the male student's rights, navigating the Irish legal system, complying with Title IX, and following internal TAMIU procedures—all while coordinating among different time zones and with spotty cell-phone reception. The legal team advised Ramirez to respect the victim's and the male student's wishes and not to call either person's emergency contact. (Dkt. No. 19-5 at 27-28). She was also informed about the intricacies and potential dangers of not reporting the incident to the Irish authorities. (Id. at 30).
Ramirez and Trevino did everything they could to protect and comfort thevictim, respect her wishes, and follow the advice of the legal and compliance departments at TAMIU. The victim remained emphatic that she did not want to go home or notify her emergency contact; she did not want the male student to go home; she did not want to travel separately from the group, miss out on any of the study-abroad activities, or in any way draw attention to herself. (Dkt. No. 19-9 at 21-23). With those parameters, Ramirez and Trevino worked together to keep the students separate: the male student stayed in a room with Trevino and the victim moved to a room on a different floor directly beside Dr. Ramirez; the students were never in the same tour-group; they boarded the bus separately and sat as far apart as possible; for the remainder of the trip the victim and male student had no interactions. (Dkt. Nos. 19-5 at 32-33; 19-9 at 21-23). The victim eventually agreed to report the incident to the Irish police, who arrested the male student and later released him. (Dkt. Nos. 19-5 at 31; 19-8 at 13, 15). Dr. Ramirez offered to fly back with the victim on a separate flight. (Dkt. No. 19-9 at 23). After the victim refused, the whole group flew back together. (Id.). Dr. Ramirez rearranged the students' seats so that the victim and the male student were in separate sections of the plane and boarded separately. (Id.).
On the day of the incident, Trevino notified Plaintiff about the situation and offered to "provide . . . any details" Plaintiff needed. (Dkt. No. 20 at 11). Plaintiff had already been notified through the online reporting system and no-contact orders that Perez emailed to the students. (Id. at 3-4, 11, 39-40). Though difficultbecause Plaintiff was several time-zones away and also had poor cell-phone reception, Ramirez and Trevino tried to keep Plaintiff apprised of the situation through telephone calls and WhatsApp chats. (Id. at 11-18). Plaintiff was able to raise his potential Title IX concerns about ensuring the students were separate, calling the emergency contacts, and possibly removing the male student at his own expense. (Dkt. Nos. 19-1 at 25; 20 at 14, 16). Plaintiff acknowledged that he could do little from India and that his boss had everything under control. (Dkt. Nos. 19-1 at 23; 20 at 16-17). Ramirez told Plaintiff that she was conferring with Texas A&M attorneys and to not "try[] to fix things from India." (Dkt. No. 20 at 16). She politely but firmly told him "[p]lease too many people involved creates confusion." (Id.).
Plaintiff was not satisfied. He wanted to be involved in the process. He wanted to ensure that TAMIU issued an interim suspension before start of semester and assigned investigators before the University-set five-day deadline. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 31). So, Plaintiff directly disobeyed Ramirez's order to stay where he was and bought a $4,358.11 plane ticket from India to Laredo. (Dkt. No. 23 at 12). He arrived home one day earlier than scheduled. (Id.). Plaintiff admitted that Perez could have ordered the interim suspension in his absence as she did the no-contact order and he only needed access to email to approve the investigators Villanueva suggested. (Dkt. Nos. 19-1 at 36, 40; 20 at 26). Still, Plaintiff believed it was in the students' and University's best interests that he return early because the process would go "a little bit smoother." (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 36).
Plaintiff called a meeting on January 19, 2016, the day before spring-semester classes started. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 40). At that meeting, the group issued an interim suspension letter to the male student. (Id.). A subsequent investigation substantiated the allegations, and the male student was suspended. (Dkt. No. 20 at 30-31).
A final "debrief meeting" was held in March. (Dkt. No. 19-9 at 31). The Title IX coordinator, Villanueva, scheduled that meeting "for a 'postmortem' review of the TIX Ireland case and discussion of how we can improve communication and handling of similar reports in the future." (Id.). Plaintiff raised several concerns at that meeting, such as a need to know and follow University procedures. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 38). Many other faculty members also had concerns, including the vice president for finance and administration, Juan Castillo. (Dkt. Nos. 19-1 at 39; 19-9 at 37). After the meeting, Plaintiff created a new Title IX training based on the incident without any opposition from Dr. Ramirez or anyone else. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 40).
The Finance Department began investigating the accounts of Plaintiff, Ramirez, and Trevino because of rumors that Plaintiff had flown from India to Ireland in the immediate aftermath of the incident without authorization and without disclosing the purchase. (Dkt. No. 19-9 at 38). During that investigation, the Finance Department uncovered several questionable transactions, an unreturned cash-advance for a trip Plaintiff had cancelled, an unpaid student loanfrom 2005, and the $4,358.11 plane ticket. (Dkt. No. 19-10 at 21-24). "[S]ome of [Plaintiff's] purchases may have been for his personal use, including purchases for luggage, a water bottle, a travel wallet belt, two laundry hampers, a curtain, and a curtain rod." (Dkt. No. 19-10 at 21).
After the Finance Department reminded Plaintiff of the cash advance he had not returned since September, he repaid those funds. (Dkt. No. 19-12 at 2). When asked about the luggage, Plaintiff first denied using it, but later admitted that he had taken it as his personal luggage on the trip to India. (Dkt. Nos. 19-2 at 4; 19-10 at 23). Doubt also arose as to whether the items purportedly purchased as prizes had ultimately been given out as prizes. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial