Phillips v. Collin Cmty. Coll. Dist.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:22-cv-184 |
| Parties | JOSEPH MICHAEL PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. COLLIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. #23), pertaining to Plaintiff's fifth cause of action. The Court, having considered the Motion, finds that it should be and hereby is DENIED.
Phillips filed suit against Collin College, the Board of Trustees of Collin Community College, and, in their individual and official capacities, H. Neil Matkin, Abe Johnson, Mary Barnes-Tilley, Kristin Streater, and Chaelle O'Quin (collectively, the Defendants) on March 8, 2022, claiming that Defendants violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Dkt. #1). On May 23, 2022, Collin College, H. Neil Matkin, Abe Johnson, Mary Barnes-Tilley Kristin Streater, and Chaelle O'Quin filed their Answer to Phillips's Complaint, (Dkt. #22). The Board of Trustees filed its Answer to Phillips's Complaint the same day (Dkt. #24). On August 3, 2022, Collin College, H. Neil Matkin, Abe Johnson, Mary Barnes-Tilley, Kristin Streater, and Chaelle O'Quin filed an Amended Answer (Dkt. #41). On August 4, 2022, the Board of Trustees filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. #44).
Additionally, on May 23, 2022, Board of Trustees, Collin College, and H. Neil Matkin's (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Phillips's fifth cause of action-an allegation of unlawful, prior restraints on Phillips's speech as a faculty member-is not viable (Dkt. #23). Specifically, Moving Defendants claim that none of the policies or directives from Defendants actually forbade certain communications of any kind (Dkt. #23 ¶ 3.8). Moving Defendants instead contend that Phillips was merely required to provide a “heads up” to the college's leaders before speaking to the public on certain matters (Dkt. #23 ¶ 3.8). Thus, according to Moving Defendants, without expressly forbidding faculty from speaking out on a matter, the policies and directives cannot constitute a prior restraint on speech. (Dkt. #23 ¶¶ 3.7, 3.8). Phillips filed a Response to the Moving Defendants' Motion on June 16, 2022, maintaining that he had asserted a claim upon which relief can be granted (Dkt. #27). The Moving Defendants filed their Reply on July 7, 2022 (Dkt. #31). Phillips filed a Sur-Reply on July 14, 2022 (Dkt. #33).
This case arises from a series of statements-a newspaper publication, an interview, class discussions, and social media posts-made by Phillips during the time he was a professor at Collin College (Dkt. #1 ¶ 3). According to Phillips, Defendants “violat[ed] his constitutional rights by retaliating against him for speaking as a private citizen about public issues” in each of the enumerated instances (Dkt. #1 ¶ 2). Specifically, Phillips complains that Defendants placed a prior restraint on his speech through a number of policies and directives, all of which Phillips claims were “attempt[s] to silence College faculty” from speaking “as private citizens on matters of public concern” (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 200-14).
Phillips asserts that the conflict between Phillips and Defendants began in 2017 when Phillips co-authored an open letter published in the Dallas Morning News advocating for the removal of Confederate memorials (Dkt. #1 ¶ 29). In the letter, Phillips identified himself as a professor at Collin College and listed his faculty email as a point of contact (Dkt. #1 ¶ 30). According to Phillips, he co-authored the letter as a private citizen. (Dkt. #1 ¶ 30).
Nonetheless, after the letter was published, two Collin College administrators met with Phillips and reminded him of Collin College's policy that requires faculty to “‘exercise appropriate restraint, exhibit tolerance for differing opinions, and indicate clearly that they are not an official spokesperson for the College' when they speak or act as private citizens” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 35) (quoting Collin College Board Policy Manual, DGC(LOCAL)-X, Employee Rights and Privileges).
Later, in 2019, Phillips granted the Washington Post an interview wherein he discussed race relations and the then-recent shooting at an El Paso, Texas grocery store. The shooter was a former Collin College student but was not a former student of Phillips's (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 39-41). Prior to Phillips's interview, Collin College's President, H. Neil Matkin, sent out a directive via email to the Collin College campus:
(Dkt. #1 ¶ 35; Dkt. #23 ¶ 2.3).[1]
Ten days after the directive was sent out and five days after the interview was published, Defendants required that Phillips meet with Associate Dean Kristin Streater (“Streater”) to discuss his violation of the directive (Dkt. #1 ¶ 49). Nearly a month later, on September 3, 2019, Defendants provided Phillips with an “Employee Coaching Form” related to the interview, informing Phillips that “[e]xpectations moving forward are to follow the President's directives when approached by the media” (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 50-2).
In June of 2020, shortly after the start of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Phillips commented on Collin College's response to the pandemic in a post to his personal Facebook account (Dkt. #1 ¶ 56). Following his post, Defendants called Phillips into a meeting with Streat and then-Dean Mary Barnes-Tilley (“Barnes-Tilley”) to discuss the Facebook post (Dkt. #1 ¶ 58). During the meeting, Barnes-Tilley asked Phillips “do you still want to work here?” and told him that his post violated the Collin College Employee Standards of Conduct's (Dkt. #1 ¶ 58). According to Phillips's, he interpreted Barnes-Tilley's comments during the meeting “as a threat to terminate his employment if he continued to speak out” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 59).
On August 11, 2021, Phillips posted a photo of a slide from a faculty meeting on his personal Facebook and Twitter accounts (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 70-2). The slide in the photo indicated that faculty were forbidden from requesting, requiring, or recommending masks be worn (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 70-2). Defendants offered Executive Order GA-38 as the basis for this policy (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 74-8). Following these posts, on August 27, 2022, Streater issued Phillips a “Level I Warning” for insubordination and failing to use internal communication channels to address his concerns (Dkt. #1 ¶ 81). The warning referenced the two latest posts, continuous failure of Phillips to bring his concerns in an appropriate manner, the 2019 interview, and the 2020 Facebook post (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 78-80).
At the beginning of the Fall 2021 semester, Phillips assigned his students an essay on the history of pandemics and epidemics from the time of Columbus to the current COVID-19 crisis (Dkt. #1 ¶ 93). During the class discussions pertaining to pandemics, Phillips voiced his annoyance with wearing masks, but commented that resistance to similar policies in the past had hindered societies from combatting the spread of other viruses in an attempt to engage his class in discussion on the issue (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 94-7). Due to these class discussions, Defendants asked Phillips to meet with Chaelle O'Quin (“O'Quin”) (Dkt. #1 ¶ 94). During the meeting, O'Quin informed Phillips that “in order to make sure no one mandates masks, it is best to never discuss them at all” and then placed Phillips on a “Performance Improvement Plan” (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 99, 100).
Following these incidents, Barnes-Tilley informed Phillips that his contract would not be renewed (Dkt. #1 ¶ 111). Despite attempts to appeal the decision not to renew his contract, Phillips was terminated from his position once his current contract expired (Dkt. #1 ¶ 111).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[after the pleadings are closed-but early enough not the delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). “A motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Props., Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); Great Plains Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2002). “The central issue is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief.” Hughes v. Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 440 n.8 (5th Cir. 2000)).
“Pleadings should be construed liberally, and judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only if there are no disputed issues of fact and only questions of law remain.” Great Plains...
To continue reading
Request your trial