Munker v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. Sys.

• Decision Date: 19 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. 52,214-CA,52,214-CA
• Citation: 255 So.3d 718
• Parties: Dr. Reinhold MUNKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

255 So.3d 718

Dr. Reinhold MUNKER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee

No. 52,214-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered September 19, 2018.

HILBURN & HILBURN, APLC, Shreveport, By: Cary A. Hilburn, Counsel for Appellant

WEEMS, SCHIMPF, HAINES, SHEMWELL & MOORE (APLC), Shreveport, By: Kenneth P. Haines, Special Assistant Attorney General, By: Amanda D. Brotherton Todd, Counsel for Appellee

Before WILLIAMS, MOORE, and COX, JJ.

WILLIAMS, J.

The plaintiff, Dr. Reinhold Munker, appeals a summary judgment dismissing his claims against the defendant, Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University System. The plaintiff also challenges the district court's denial of his motion for partial summary judgment. For the following reasons, the district court's judgment is reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Dr. Reinhold Munker, was a tenured professor of medicine at Louisiana State University Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He was officially employed by the defendant, Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University System ("the Board").¹ The plaintiff was a professor/researcher in the field of hematology and oncology.

On the morning of August 18, 2015, the department of hematology and oncology held a staff meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, Dr. Glenn Mills, the director of the Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, and Dr. Gary Burton, an employee in the hematology/oncology department, were having a discussion. Dr. Mills stated that the plaintiff approached them and accused Dr. Burton of not wanting him (the plaintiff) to conduct research. According to Dr. Mills, the plaintiff angrily stated, "Well then, I'll resign and I'll go to Minnesota or Washington where they appreciate me and I can do research. I was brought here to do research." Dr. Mills then angrily responded, "I accept your resignation. I'd like a letter at the end of the day giving me your resignation date."

Shortly thereafter, a series of electronic mail ("email") was exchanged between the plaintiff and Dr. Mills. The emails provided as follows:

TUESDAY AUGUST 18, 2015

Dr. Mills to the plaintiff:

9:29 a.m.

I will accept your letter of resignation today. You may set the effective date but no longer than October 1, 2015.

If you wish to remain a faculty member then I expect you to fully perform your faculty duties including teaching, outpatient clinics, supervision of trainees and research. (Emphasis added).

The plaintiff to Dr. Mills:

9:44 a.m.

As you know, a letter of resignation has to be in writing. I mentioned that serious issues in the department and section have to be fixed. (Emphasis added).

Dr. Mills to the plaintiff:

10:48 a.m.

I was following up on your statement to me and Dr. Burton you wished to resign.

If you have changed your mind that is fine. (Emphasis added).

However, I expect full participation as a faculty [member] including teaching the students, residents, fellows, and in your assigned clinics.

These are difficult times and I need faculty who will work collaboratively & want to see the [LSU Feist-Weiller Cancer Center] succeed.

The plaintiff to Dr. Mills:

11:18 a.m.

I do not see efforts made by the LSU leadership to succeed. By German standards, senior faculty should write manuscripts, not dream about moving into the private domain. Will be happy to share my thoughts.

* * *

Other institutions (Seattle, Mayo Clinic) may want [sic] that I send my [curriculum vitae]. You need common sense, stop complaining. If Dr. Marion has initiated my removal from tenure, a lot of people should be asked to leave.

Dr. Mills to the plaintiff:

11:25 a.m.

Stop these emails. You are free to leave, send me your resignation. You will not tell me what to do. Further ranting emails such as these will not be tolerated. (Emphasis added).

Thereafter, Dr. Mills included Dr. Jay Marion, the department chairman, and Dr. Robert Barish, the chancellor, in the email chain. The emails were as follows:

Dr. Marion to Dr. Barish:

11:57 a.m.

Dr. Barish,

Dr. Munker claimed in his response to Dr. Mills that I was initiating his "removal from tenure." I would like to clarify that this is not the situation [.]² (Emphasis added).

* * *

I spoke with Dr. Mills and with Dr. Eggerstedt regarding what options existed for a tenured faculty who refused to participate in ACGME^[3] required teaching and student teaching. After our discussions, it was clear that Dr. Mills may have reminded Dr. Munker that tenured faculty still have to be mindful of their responsibilities (I was not present when they talked, but I know what Glenn and I discussed prior to his meeting with Dr. Munker.)

I wanted to clarify that I have not "initiated" his job termination or "removal from tenure" as he suggests. He was only reminded that tenure doesn't relieve an individual of their responsibilities and that tenured faculty can still be terminated for job abandonment. (Emphasis added).

Dr. Mills informed me that Dr. Munker got into an argument with Dr. Burton this morning regarding other LSU related issues. It was apparently at that time Dr. Munker stated that he "wished to resign." (Emphasis added).

I personally support the way this was handled by Dr. Mills. Dr. Munker can play by the rules or he can resign if he wishes . He should not be allowed to disrupt an entire section. (Emphasis added).

* * *

Dr. Mills to Dr. Barish:

3:52 p.m.Sorry that Dr. Munker has involved you in this. Jay is correct, Dr. Munker got into an argument with initially Dr. Burton then me at our research meeting and threatened to resign. I simply took him up on his offer and said he could give me a letter today. Although as you can see below I clearly said that he could remain but he does need to fulfill his faculty obligations. Not sure what he wants to do at this time. Will keep you informed, although he will probably do that as well. (Emphasis added).

Subsequently, on Sunday, August 23, 2015, Dr. Mills sent an email to faculty members, including the plaintiff, regarding registering for a group meeting to be held in October 2015. The plaintiff responded to the email as follows, "So Oct. 1^st is our preferred day for me to leave? " Thereafter, the following emails were exchanged:

Dr. Mills to the plaintiff:

2:19 p.m.

I prefer you to stay but if you wish to leave then we will work out your departure date. I still want you to schedule a meeting to see me. (Emphasis added).

The plaintiff to Dr. Mills:

3:51 p.m.

If you want to discuss research, any time in the afternoon. If you want to discuss the conditions for me to stay, I will get a lawyer and/or a witness.

Later that afternoon, the plaintiff sent another email to Dr. Mills which contained various complaints about the department and comparing LSU standards to "German academic law." Dr. Mills did not respond. On August 27, 2015, the plaintiff received a "Notice of Immediate Dismissal." The notice, which was signed by Lisa Ebarb, Executive Director, Human Resources Management, provided:

On August 18, 2015, Dr. Glenn Mills accepted your verbal resignation and confirmed it in writing at 9:29 on the same date. At that time, it was thought that a notice/transition period to end no later than October 1^st might be appropriate. It is now apparent that a notice/transition period will not be fruitful. Accordingly, your resignation is effective at close of business today.

Please contact Human Resources regarding your benefits, which may include retirement benefits, and make arrangements with your department head to vacate your office and clear campus.

The plaintiff made the following handwritten notation on the letter: "This letter does not correspond to the truth. Therefore, I am not willing to accept his letter. Thank you." The notation was signed by the plaintiff.

Thereafter, Carolyn Winner, of the human resources department, sent an email to Drs. Marion and Mills, confirming that the letter had been hand-delivered to the plaintiff in the presence of the cancer center's business manager and a university police officer. The email also informed the recipients that the plaintiff's computer access, identification badge and parking access had been disabled, his keys and identification badge had been confiscated by security, and the plaintiff had been "advised that he is not to return to campus without contacting Human Resource Management for an approved appointment." Dr. Mills responded, "Thank you."

On December 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the Board, alleging that he was "terminated without prior notice and without cause." The plaintiff also alleged as follows:

* * *

8.

As a tenured member of the faculty, Plaintiff has a property interest in employment protected by the procedural due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2 of the Louisiana Constitution.

* * *

11.

Because Dr. Munker was terminated without notice and without opportunity to defend himself, the termination is an absolute nullity. He should be restored to his position with full back pay and benefits.

12.

Dr. Munker is also entitled to a monetary award of damages for the injury to his personal and professional reputation caused by the unlawful termination of his employment.

* * *

The defendant filed a general denial of the petition and prayed for a jury trial. Thereafter, on July 14, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment, alleging that he was "entitled to a judgment declaring that there was no lawful termination of his employment for the following reasons: (1) [he] did not resign; (2) his employment was terminated against his will by a person who did not have termination authority; and (3) he was terminated without procedural due process." Attached to his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff included numerous exhibits, including copies of the email exchanges between him and Dr. Mills, the letter signed by Ms. Ebarb, the...