Butler v. Collins

• Decision Date: 19 January 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:18-CV-00037-E
• Parties: CHERYL BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER M. COLLINS, STEVEN C. CURRALL, JULIE FORRESTER ROGERS, HAROLD STANLEY, AND SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

1

CHERYL BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER M. COLLINS, STEVEN C. CURRALL, JULIE FORRESTER ROGERS, HAROLD STANLEY, AND SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-00037-E

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

January 19, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ADA BROWN, DISTRICT JUDGE

Cheryl Bulter, filed suit in the 193^rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas against Defendants. Defendants removed this case to federal court in January of 2018, at which time this case was before Judge Lindsay. As amended Plaintiff asserted thirty counts against Defendants based on (i) defamation; (ii) fraud; (iii) negligence; (iv) breach of contract; and (v) several allegations of unlawful employment practices.

The Court previously dismissed with prejudice eight of Plaintiff's claims. (Doc. 47). On November 29, 2021 Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, which sought dismissal of all of Plaintiff's remaining claims (“Defendants' Motion”). (Doc. 126). Despite requesting and receiving two extensions to file her response, Plaintiff failed to timely file a response to Defendant's Motion. On April 11, 2022, the Court issued an Order which granted Defendants' Motion. (Doc. 190). In the Order, the Court stated “[a]n opinion containing the grounds for the Court's decision is forthcoming.” (Doc. 189). Hereunder, the Court explains its reasoning for granting Defendant's Motion thereby dismissing all of Plaintiff's remaining counts:

I. Background

A. Plaintiff's Negative Tenure Recommendation

Defendant Southern Methodist University (“SMU”) previously employed Plaintiff. This dispute arises from a 2016 decision to deny Plaintiff tenure as a law professor. In 2011, SMU hired Plaintiff to work as an assistant law professor. Plaintiff's appointment letter informed that (i) her appointment was from August 2011 to May 2014 and (ii) “[i]f your contract is renewed you would normally be considered for a tenured appointment during the 2015-2016 academic term.” Plaintiff's appointment letter further attached the law school's bylaws (“Bylaws”) and tenure procedures and standards. Plaintiff taught at SMU from August 2011 to May 2014. In March 2014, SMU renewed Plaintiff's employment; however, the committee that evaluated Plaintiff's renewal concluded in its contract renewal report that “Professor Butler's teaching has room for improvement.”

In fall of 2015, SMU began the process for determining tenure for Plaintiff. The Bylaws include the guidelines used to determine tenure (“Guidelines”). The Bylaws' criteria for tenure state, inter alia:

A professor has two preeminent responsibilities: teaching and contributing to the growth and understanding of the law. These two responsibilities shall be given equal weight in the determination whether to award tenure or promotion to a member of the Faculty. ....

Promotion to the rank of full professor will only be awarded to candidates who demonstrate both sustained high quality teaching and substantial and continuing contributions to the growth and understanding of the law.

(Doc. 128 at 138).

SMU empaneled a “First Tenure Committee,” who raised concerns that Plaintiff's teaching was not meeting the “high quality” standard for tenure. When Plaintiff learned of the First Tenure Committee's concerns about her teaching, Plaintiff accused the First Tenure Committee of violating her civil rights. Thereafter, the First Tenure Committee resigned, and the dean of the law school, Defendant Jennifer Collins, appointed a “Second Tenure Committee.”

As part of the tenure decision, SMU required Plaintiff to provide several documents- including a personal statement, syllabi, resume of qualifications, teaching evaluations, and other materials-by November 16, 2015 (“Tenure Box”). Plaintiff sought an extension of her tenure decision to the following academic year (the 2016-2017 school year), which SMU Provost Harold Stanley denied. Plaintiff failed to timely submit her Tenure Box. Two other professors who were submitting to the tenure process for the law school timely submitted their respective tenure boxes.

In January 2016, the Second Tenure Committee issued its tenure report for Plaintiff (“Tenure Report”). Regarding Plaintiff's teaching, the Tenure Report stated:

This committee is in unanimous agreement that Cheryl's student teaching evaluations are, on the whole, problematic and a cause for concern. As noted at the beginning of this report, we do not feel comfortable making a collective recommendation of tenure and promotion for Cheryl based on her teaching. We are in agreement that no colleague should be granted tenure and promotion under our standards unless her teaching is at least of “high quality.”

[W]e believe that the problems with Cheryl's teaching were perhaps understated in the [contract renewal] report.

Since the renewal committee report Cheryl has taught Torts I twice (fall, 2014 & 15) and Torts II once (spring, 2015). These more recent evaluations . . . [reflect] no progress for Cheryl as a teacher. More objectively, they demonstrate a marked worsening in the quality of Cheryl's teaching and course management.

[S]tudents in [Plaintiff's fall 2014 Torts I class] questioned her understanding of the material and her preparation for class. Several also complained that she repeatedly cancelled classes or terminated them early, a continuing refrain in most of Cheryl's torts evaluations[.] . . . Cheryl's evaluations for Torts II (spring, 2015) and Torts I (fall, 2015) were, on the whole, awful.

[Students'] comments . . . opined that she was often unprepared for class and lacked knowledge of the subject matter.

The following lengthy [student] comment . . . encapsulates the overwhelming majority of the evaluations:

I have never had a professor more distracted and unclear. Assignments change constantly, classes are cancelled with minimal notice and rescheduled with no concern for student's other obligations. I have had to email for clarifications on assignments at least four times; I will receive one answer, then the whole class will be emailed with a different answer, and then what is discussed in class will be different than that. There's no way to prepare ahead because assignments will change the MORNING of class. She says she wants us to be fact masters, but SHE DOESN'T KNOW THE FACTS of the cases. Class discussion on cases is an excruciating line-by-line rendition of the case. It's not a creative or enlightening method of learning. Her mood swings are beyond unpredictable. One day she is energetic and wants questions and engagement, some days she's aloof and distracted, some days she wants questions, other days she acts like they should never even be asked. She is condescending; she is flippant. []

Most unfortunately, many students accused Cheryl of appearing to be angry with them, of belittling and berating particular students and, generally, of acting unprofessionally toward the class.

(Doc. 128 at 60-65).

The Tenure Report further raised concerns about Plaintiff's interactions with the Second Tenure Committee:

Cheryl is often untruthful in her dealings with her colleagues and the law school administration. By untruthful, we mean that she says things that she knows or should know are not true. She repeatedly mischaracterizes what colleagues have said, including what members of this committee have told her. She often states facts in contradiction to what she said earlier in the same conversation..... She has made accusations against colleagues, including our Dean and our Provost, that are demonstrably not true.

(Doc. 128 at 74).

The Second Tenure Committee ultimately concluded in its Tenure Report that “[t]he committee agrees that Cheryl's teaching falls short of [tenure] standards. On January 13, 2016, the faculty voted on whether Plaintiff would receive tenure; the Guidelines on voting provide:

When a Faculty member is to be considered for tenure or promotion, the Dean shall call a special meeting for that purpose.

In the case of tenure consideration, only tenured members may vote.

A quorum for a meeting on tenure or promotion shall consist of 75% of the group eligible to vote and the candidate shall be recommended for tenure or promotion only on the favorable vote of 60% of those eligible to vote.

If promotion or tenure is not approved, the candidate shall be advised of the results of voting.

(Doc. 128 at 137).

After the faculty voted by secret ballot, Plaintiff received a negative tenure recommendation. Collins did not vote on Plaintiff's tenure recommendation. The faculty voted to recommend tenure for the other two professors who were submitting to the tenure process-one of whom is black.

B. Appeal of Negative Tenure Recommendation and Provost Recommendation

Thereafter, Butler appealed the negative tenure recommendation to Collins. Collins informed Plaintiff she would consider the appeal on materials previously provided unless Plaintiff provided additional materials by April 25, 2016. Plaintiff provided no additional materials, and Collins denied Plaintiff's negative tenure recommendation appeal on May 4, 2016. Collins presented the negative tenure recommendation to the provost of SMU, Defendant Steven Currall, by letter on May 4, 2016 (“Collins Letter”). The Collins Letter stated to Currall the following, inter alia:

Unfortunately, I concur in my colleagues' assessment that Professor Butler has not demonstrated high quality in teaching.

[T]he problems identified in the student evaluations were confirmed by extensive peer observations and other indicia of unsatisfactory teaching, including problems with syllabi assignments, exams, and grading.... Professor Butler's student evaluations are in a different category than the rest of the

...