Adams v UNC-Wilmington - Answer to Amended Complaint Without Exhibits

8/20/2019 Adams v UNC-Wilmington - Answer to Amended Complaint Without Exhibits

1/35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Civil Action No. 7:07-cv-64(H)

MICHAEL S. ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE TRUSTEES OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH

CAROLINA-WILMINGTON, et al,

Defendants.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

Defendants The Trustees of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (“The

Trustees”), Chancellor Rosemary DePaolo, Dean David Cordle, Kimberly Cook, and Diane Levy

hereby respond to Plaintiff’s 2 May 2007 Amended Complaint, as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants admit that the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (“UNCW”

or “University”) is a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina (UNC).

Defendants further admit that Dr. Michael Adams is an Associate Professor of Criminology at

UNCW. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the reasons that men and

women pursue careers in academia, as to the hopes and desires of these professors, and as to the

reasons Dr. Michael Adams chose to become a university professor. Defendants specifically

deny that they unlawfully discriminated against Dr. Adams and that they have violated Dr.

Adams’ constitutional rights. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 1 are denied.

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 35


2/35

2

2. Defendants admit that Dr. Michael Adams is an Associate Professor of

Criminology at UNCW. Defendants further admit that Dr. Michael Adams has not been

promoted to Professor of Criminology at UNCW. Defendants lack sufficient information to form

a belief as to what expectations that Dr. Adams had or continues to have regarding his

employment. Defendants specifically deny that they have violated Dr. Adams’ First Amendment

right to free speech, that they have retaliated against Dr. Adams for exercising his First

Amendment rights, and that they have discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs.

Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 2 are denied.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The allegations in paragraph 3 state legal conclusions or assertions, which

Defendants are not required to admit or deny; to the extent that Defendants are required to

respond to such allegations, the Defendants admit that the Complaint purports to plead federal

questions.

4. The allegations in paragraph 4 state a legal conclusion or assertion, which

Defendants are not required to admit or deny; to the extent that the Court deems that Defendants

are required to respond, the Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction over these claims.

5. The allegations in paragraph 5 are admitted.

PLAINTIFF


DEFENDANTS

7. Defendants admit that Rosemary DePaolo is the Chancellor of UNCW, a



3/35

3

constituent institution of the University of North Carolina recognized under Chapter 116 of the

North Carolina General Statutes, with all the duties set forth by State statute and UNCW and

UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant DePaolo is a legal

conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as admitted, the

allegations in paragraph 7 are denied.

8. Defendants admit that M. Terry Coffey is a member of the Board of Trustees of

UNCW, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina recognized under Chapter

116 of the North Carolina General Statutes, with all the trustee duties set forth by State statute

and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant M.

Terry Coffey is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as

admitted, the allegations in paragraph 8 are denied.

9. Defendants admit that Jeff D. Etheridge, Jr. is a member of the Board of Trustees

of UNCW, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina recognized under Chapter


and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Jeff D.

Etheridge, Jr. is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


10. Defendants admit that Charles D. Evans is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Charles



4/35

4

D. Evans is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


11. Defendants admit that Lee Brewer Garrett is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Lee

Brewer Garrett is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except

as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 11 are denied.

12. Defendants admit that John A. McNeill, Jr. is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant John A.

McNeill, Jr. is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


13. Defendants admit that Wendy F. Murphy is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Wendy

F. Murphy is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


14. Defendants admit that Linda A. Pierce is a member of the Board of Trustees



5/35

5



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Linda

A. Pierce is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


15. Defendants admit that R. Allen Rippy, Sr. is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant R.

Allen Rippy, Sr. is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny.


16. Defendants admit that George M. Teague is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant George

M. Teague is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


17. Defendants admit that Krista S. Tillman is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Krista



6/35

6

S. Tillman is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


18. Defendants admit that Dennis T. Worley is a member of the Board of Trustees



and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Dennis

T. Worley is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


19. Defendants admit that Katherine L. Gurgainus was a member of the Board of

Trustees of UNCW, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina recognized

under Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General Statutes, with all the trustee duties set forth by

State statute and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue

Defendant Katherine L. Gurgainus is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to

admit or deny. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 19 are denied.

20. Defendants admit that David P. Cordle is the Dean of the College of Arts and

Sciences at UNCW, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina recognized

under Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General Statutes, with all the duties set forth by State

statute and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant

David P. Cordle is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny.


21. Defendants admit that Kimberly J. Cook is the Chair of the Department of



7/35

7

Sociology and Criminology at UNCW, a constituent institution of the University of North

Carolina recognized under Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General Statutes, with all the

duties of a department chair and faculty member set forth by State statute and UNCW and UNC

policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Kimberly J. Cook is a

legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as admitted, the


22. Defendants admit that Diane Levy is a faculty member and former interim Chair

of the Department of Sociology and Criminology at UNCW, a constituent institution of the

University of North Carolina recognized under Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General

Statutes, with all the duties of a department chair and faculty member set forth by State statute

and UNCW and UNC policies. The capacity in which Plaintiff chooses to sue Defendant Diane

Levy is a legal conclusion which Defendants are not required to admit or deny. Except as


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. UNIVERSITY POLICIES

23. Defendants admit that The University of North Carolina is a public, multi-campus

university organized and established under Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General Statutes

and existing under North Carolina law. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 to his

Complaint appears to be an accurate copy of The University Mission Statement contained at the

following website: http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/system/mission.htm. Defendants

additionally note that the quoted paragraphs are taken from N.C.G.S. § 116-1(b) (2008). As to



8/35

8

the excerpt of N.C.G.S. § 116-1 contained in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 and the exhibit itself, these

documents, to the extent admissible into evidence, speak for themselves. Except as admitted, the


24. Defendants admit that UNCW is a constituent institution of The University of

North Carolina recognized under Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

Defendants further admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 to his Complaint appears to be an accurate

copy of the UNCW Mission Statement as of May 2005, but note that the Statement was amended

on 3 August 2007, and awaits approval by the UNC Board of Governors. As to the contents of

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself.


25. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

of excerpts from The Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina as of

the date of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but note that the Code was amended on two occasions, 1 July

2007 and 29 February 2008, after Plaintiff’s filing. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, the

document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the


26. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the

reasons why the UNC Board of Governors created policies. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 3 to his Complaint appears to be a copy of excerpts from The Code of the Board of

Governors of The University of North Carolina as of the date of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but note

that the Code was amended on two occasions, 1 July 2007 and 29 February 2008, after Plaintiff’s



9/35

9

filing. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, the document, to the extent admissible into

evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 26 are denied.


of excerpts from The UNCW Faculty Handbook, but note that the Handbook was amended in

August 2007. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, the document, to the extent admissible

into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 27 are denied.


of excerpts from The UNCW Faculty Handbook, but note that the Handbook was amended in

August 2007. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, the document, to the extent admissible



of excerpts from The Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina as of

the date of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but note that the Code was amended on two occasions, 1 July

2007 and 29 February 2008, after Plaintiff’s filing. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, the




of the UNCW Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy located on the UNCW Human

Resources website. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, the document, to the extent

admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 30

are denied.



10/35

10

B. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS’ DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM

31. Defendants admit that UNCW interviewed and hired Plaintiff in1993 and that

Plaintiff served as an Assistant Professor of Criminology from 1993 through 1998. Defendants

lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the content of Plaintiff’s religious

or political beliefs; and, therefore cannot admit or deny these allegations. Except as admitted, the


32. Defendants admit that Dr. Steven H. McNamee (1993-1996) and Dr. Cecil Willis

(1996-2004) served as chairs of the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at UNCW.

Defendants further admit that these two men conducted annual reviews of Plaintiff during that

time period. As to these reviews, the contents of these documents, to the extent admissible into

evidence, speak for themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 32 are denied.

33. Defendants admit that Dr. McNamee had conversations with Plaintiff about his

teaching performance and that Dr. McNamee provided Plaintiff with positive comments during

these conversations. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to

the specific contents of any conversation between Dr. McNamee and Plaintiff regarding his

evaluation; and, therefore, cannot admit or deny the allegations. As to any performance review,

the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the


34. Defendants admit that Dr. McNamee considers himself a “liberal Democrat” and

a member of a Catholic Church. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a

belief as to how Plaintiff defines the term “liberal” as applied to the national or state Democratic



11/35

11

party or as applied to the Roman Catholic Church; and, therefore, cannot admit or deny the

allegations. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 34 are denied.

35. Defendants admit that Dr. McNamee conducted annual reviews for Plaintiff

between 1994 through 1996. As to these reviews, the contents of these documents, to the extent

admissible into evidence, speak for themselves. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 to his

Complaint appears to be Dr. McNamee’s evaluation of Plaintiff for the Fall 1993 semester. As to

the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks

for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 35 are denied.

36. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 to his Complaint appears to be an

unsigned copy of Dr. McNamee’s evaluation of Plaintiff for the 1994 Spring, Summer, and Fall

semesters. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8, the document, to the extent authentic and


are denied.


unsigned copy of Dr. McNamee’s evaluation of Plaintiff for the 1995 Spring, Summer, and Fall

semesters. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9, the document, to the extent admissible into


38. Defendants admit that Dr. Willis provided positive comments to Plaintiff about

his teaching performance. Defendants further admit that Dr. Willis conducted annual reviews for

Plaintiff. As to these reviews, the contents of these documents, to the extent admissible into

evidence, speak for themselves. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a



12/35

12

belief as to what specific oral comments that Dr. Willis provided to Plaintiff regarding his

performance; and, therefore, cannot admit or deny these specific allegations. Defendants also

admit that Plaintiff received a special teaching stipend in 1996. Except as admitted, the


39. Defendants admit that Dr. Willis considers himself a “Democrat” and a member

of a Baptist church. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to

how Plaintiff defines the term “liberal” as applied to the national or state Democratic party; and,

therefore, cannot admit or deny these allegations. Except as admitted, the allegations in

paragraph 39 are denied.

40. Defendants admit that Dr. Diane Levy and Dr. Gary Faulkner are married. Except


41. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff

received a listing in the 1996 Who’s Who Among College Teachers; and, therefore, cannot admit

or deny these allegations. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 41 are denied.

42. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 to his Complaint appears to be a letter

from Diane Levy to Plaintiff dated 20 June 1996. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, the



43. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11 to his Complaint appears to be a

copy of Dr. Willis’ evaluation of Plaintiff for the 1997 Spring and Fall semesters. As to the

contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks



13/35

13


44. Defendants admit that the Greek Affairs Review & Recognition Committee

Community at UNCW recognized Plaintiff as Faculty Member of the Year in 1998. Defendants

admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12 to this Complaint appears to be a handwritten letter from the

Greek Week Chair to Plaintiff. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, the document, to the

extent authentic and admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the


45. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was promoted to Associate Professor of

Criminology on 1 August 1998. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13 to this Complaint

appears to be the Promotion and Tenure Recommendation from Dean Jo Ann Seiple on

Plaintiff’s behalf. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13, the document, to the extent


are denied.


of Dr. Willis’ evaluation of Plaintiff for the 1998 Spring and Summer Semesters. As to the



47. Defendants admit that the Greek Affairs Review & Recognition Committee and

the UNCW Office of the Dean of Students recognized Plaintiff as Faculty Member of the Year in

2000. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 to the Complaint appears to be a copy

of the certificate for this award. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15, the document, to the



14/35

14

extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in


48. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief upon which

to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 48.

49. Defendants admit that Plaintiff informed Dr. Willis that Plaintiff had been

removed from the Faculty Senate mailing list. Defendants lack sufficient information or

knowledge to form a belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph

49.


of Dr. Willis’ evaluation of Plaintiff for the 2000 Spring, Summer, and Fall Semesters. As to the



51. Defendants admit that Ms. Rosa Fuller was a UNCW student and is the daughter

of Patti Turrisi, a Philosophy professor and director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at

UNCW. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to admit or deny

the contents of the e-mail that Plaintiff received from Ms. Rosa Fuller, the date that Plaintiff

received such an e-mail, and the number of individuals that received said e-mail from Ms. Fuller;

and, therefore, cannot admit or deny these allegations. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit

17 to his Complaint appears to be a copy of Plaintiff’s 17 September 2001 response to an e-mail

written by Ms. Fuller on 15 September 2001. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17, the




15/35

15



of Plaintiff’s 17 September 2001 response to an e-mail written by Ms. Fuller on 15 September

2001. Defendants lack sufficient information upon which to admit or deny how the number of

individuals who received the forwarded e-mail from Plaintiff; and, therefore, cannot admit or

deny this allegation. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17, the document, to the extent


are denied.

53. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to admit or

deny the truth of the contents of Plaintiff’s phone call or about the hearsay comments contained

in said call. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 53 are denied.

54. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to admit or deny

the allegations in paragraph 54.

55. Defendants admit that Dr. Willis informed Plaintiff of Dr. Turrisi’s demands, and

that Plaintiff replied in a manner consistent with the allegations in paragraph 55. Defendants

deny that Dr. Willis asked Plaintiff to disclose to whom he had sent the e-mail.

56. Defendants admit that Ms. Fuller on 20 September 2001 filed a complaint with

the Chancellor’s Office and that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 18 to his Complaint appears to be a copy of

Ms. Fuller’s complaint. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 18, the document, to the extent


are denied.



16/35

16

57. Since former Provost John Cavanaugh left employment with UNCW several years

ago, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to when Dr.

Cavanaugh called Plaintiff and as to the contents of such a conversation; and, therefore,

Defendants cannot admit or deny these allegations.






of Plaintiff’s 23 September 2001 e-mail to former UNCW Provost John Cavanaugh. As to the



60. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to when

Ms. Krysten Scott called Plaintiff and as to the contents of such a conversation; and, therefore,

Defendants cannot admit or deny these allegations. Defendants admit that the UNCW

investigated Ms. Scott’s e-mail and determined that it was not an imminent threat. Except as



of former UNCW Provost John Cavanaugh’s 25 September 2001 e-mail response to Plaintiff’s

23 September 2001 e-mail. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20, the document, to the




17/35

17



of former UNCW University Counsel Harold M. White Jr.’s 26 September 2001 letter to Ms.

Rosa Fuller regarding her 20 September 2001 written request. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 21, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as



of Ms. Rosa Fuller’s 28 September 2001 letter in response to former UNCW University Counsel

Harold M. White Jr.’s 26 September 2001 letter. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22, the




of former UNCW University Counsel Harold M. White Jr.’s 28 September 2001 e-mail to

Plaintiff regarding Ms. Fuller’s complaint. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 23, the




of Ms. Rosa Fuller’s 1 October 2001 letter in response to former UNCW University Counsel

Harold M. White Jr.’s 26 September 2001 letter. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 24, the





18/35

18

66. Since former University Counsel Harold M. White Jr. left employment with

UNCW several years ago, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief

as to when Mr. White called Plaintiff and as to the contents of such a conversation; and,

therefore, Defendants cannot admit or deny these allegations.

67. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 25 to his Complaint appears to contain

copies of former UNCW University Counsel Harold M. White Jr.’s 3 October 2001 in response

to Ms. Rosa Fuller’s 1 October 2001 letter; Ms. Rosa Fuller’s 10 October 2001 response to Mr.

White’s 3 October 2001 letter; and Mr. White’s 11 October 2001 response to Ms. Fuller’s 10

October 2001 letter. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 25, the documents, to the extent

admissible into evidence, speak for themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph

67 are denied.


of Ms. Rosa Fuller’s 15 October 2001 letter to former UNCW University Counsel Harold M.

White Jr. requesting a “final decision” on her complaint to the University. As to the contents of










19/35

19


as to when Mr. White spoke with Plaintiff, as to the contents of any conversation, and as to the

dates and discussions related to any visits to Plaintiff’s office; and, therefore, Defendants cannot

admit or deny these allegations.



as to the contents of any conversation that occurred during a visit to Plaintiff’s office; and,




as to the contents of any conversation that occurred between Mr. White and Plaintiff or Mr.

White and Dr. Donna King; and, therefore, Defendants cannot admit or deny these allegations.



as to the contents of any conversation that occurred between Mr. White and Ms. Scott; and,



UNCW several years ago and Mike Sheehan has retired from UNCW, Defendants lack sufficient

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the contents of any conversation that occurred

between Mr. White, Mr. Sheehan, Ms. Scott, and Plaintiff; and, therefore, Defendants cannot

admit or deny these allegations.



20/35

20


UNCW several years ago and Mike Sheehan has retired from UNCW, Defendants lack sufficient

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the contents of any conversation that occurred

between Mr. White, Mr. Sheehan, Dr. King, and Plaintiff regarding the inspection of their office

computers; and, therefore, Defendants cannot admit or deny these allegations.


of former UNCW University Counsel Harold M. White Jr.’s 25 October 2001 response to Ms.

Rosa Fuller’s 15 October 2001 letter requesting a “final decision” on her complaint to the

University. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27, the document, to the extent admissible



of Ms. Rosa Fuller’s undated letter or “complaint” to several UNCW officials with unidentified

handwritten notations in the typewritten text. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 28, the

document, to the extent authentic and admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as


78. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to admit or deny

whether Plaintiff appeared as a guest on the television program Hannity & Colmes, the date on

which Plaintiff appeared, and the contents of the discussions during any appearance; and,

therefore, cannot admit or deny the allegations. Defendants note that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 29 to his

Complaint appears to be an unverified and unofficial “transcript” printed out from the website of

the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (“FIRE”). As to the contents of Plaintiff’s



21/35

21

Exhibit 29, the document, to the extent authentic and admissible into evidence, speaks for itself.


79. Defendants admit that Dr. Lynn Snowden complained to the UNCW police that

Plaintiff and Dr. Willis broke into her office and sprayed poison gas or tear gas. Defendants

further admit that the UNCW police and the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) investigated her

claims and closed the case as unfounded. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 79 are

denied.

80. Defendants note that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30 to his Complaint appears to be an

unauthenticated “Form Denial” printed out from the website of the Foundation for Individual

Rights in Education (“FIRE”). As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30, the document, to the

extent authentic and admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Defendants assert that an actual

e-mail from former Provost Cavanaugh, rather than this unsigned “form” is the best evidence for

the contents of Dr. Cavanaugh’s responses to “supportive” e-mails that he received regarding

Plaintiff. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 80 are denied.

81. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to if,

when, and to whom Plaintiff informally requested that all records, etc. related to the investigation

of Dr. Snowden’s complaint be disclosed to him; and, therefore, Defendants cannot admit or

deny these allegations. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31 to his Complaint appears to

be a copy of a 3 May 2002 letter from Plaintiff to former UNCW University Counsel Harold M.

White Jr. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31, the document, to the extent admissible into




22/35

22

82. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to

whether Plaintiff published a May 2002 column, as to the contents of said column, as to whether

the May 2002 column created immediate palpable tension in his department, and as to whether

some unknown individuals characterized it as an “uproar;” and, therefore, cannot admit or deny

these allegations. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32 to his Complaint appears to be a

copy of a 17 July 2002 column in the Agape Press. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32,

the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the







whether Dr. Price gave students extra credit for assisting with a protest or as to whether Dr. Price

used a department copy card to make antiwar flyers; and, therefore, cannot admit or deny these

allegations. The remaining allegations in paragraph 84 are denied.








23/35

23




87. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 36 to his Complaint purports to be a list

of Plaintiff’s Published and Accepted for Publication Peer Reviewed Publications and that

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 37 to his Complaint purports to be a list of Plaintiff’s Published and Under

Consideration Other Publications. As to the contents of these Exhibits, the documents, to the

extent authentic and admissible into evidence, speak for themselves. Except as admitted, the


88. The allegations in paragraph 88 are denied.

89. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38 to his Complaint purports to be a list

of Plaintiff’s Community Service Activities. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38, the

document, to the extent authentic and admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as


90. Defendants admit that Dr. Willis asked Plaintiff to consider the feelings of other

employees when he decided whether to discuss his columns at work. Defendants lack sufficient

information or knowledge to form a belief as to how Ms. Donna Dugan felt about Plaintiff’s

columns; and, therefore, cannot admit or deny these allegations. Defendants deny that Dr. Willis

forbid Plaintiff from discussing his columns in the workplace. Except as admitted, the





24/35

24

whether Plaintiff complied with Dr. Willis’ request, as to whether Ms. Dugan downloaded or

read Plaintiff’s columns, and as to if or how she responded to these columns; and, therefore,

cannot admit or deny these allegations.


why Plaintiff wrote a column, as to whether Ms. Dugan downloaded or read Plaintiff’s column,

and as to if or how she responded to this column; and, therefore, cannot admit or deny these

allegations. Defendants admit that Ms. Dugan left the workplace early one day; but Defendants

lack sufficient information or knowledge to form belief as to the specific date or as to the reasons

Ms. Dugan left work. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 39 to his Complaint appears to

be a copy of a 19 October 2004 column on the website www.townhall.com. As to the contents of



93. Defendants admit that Plaintiff met with Dr. Diane Levy in 2004, and provided

her a list of publications. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 93 are denied.

94. Defendants admit that Dr. Diane Levy considers herself a “political liberal,”

“feminist,” and “Jewish.” Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief

as to how Plaintiff defines the term “liberal,” “feminist,” or “Jewish descent;” and, therefore,

cannot admit or deny such allegations. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 94 are

denied.


unsigned copy of Dr. Levy’s evaluation of Plaintiff for the 2004 Spring and Fall Semesters. As



25/35

25

to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40, the document, to the extent authentic and admissible into



97. Defendants admit that on 1 July 2005 Dr. Kimberly J. Cook became the chair of

the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at UNCW. Defendants admit that Dr. Cook

considers herself a “feminist.” Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a

belief as to how Plaintiff defines the term “feminist;” and, therefore, cannot admit or deny this

allegation. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 97 are denied.

98. Defendants admit that Dr. Randy LaGrange recalls the remarks, or words to that

effect, cited in footnote #1 to paragraph 98 of the Complaint. Defendants further admit that Dr.

LaGrange recalls these words were uttered in lighthearted conversation by the committee and that

everyone laughed. Defendants also admit that Dr. LaGrange recalls that he may have even

suggested in jest that he hoped the committee would recruit a good golfer for the department.


99. Defendants admit that Dr. Susan Bullers became the director of the UNCW

Women’s Resource Center on 1 July 2005. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 99

are denied.

100. Defendants admit that Dr. Cook had routine meetings with Plaintiff in the spring

of 2006 about work issues and during one of those meetings Plaintiff described the root of his

conflict with Dr. Snowden. Defendants admit that Dr. Cook asked what she could do to help the

situation, and that Plaintiff asked her to obtain written confirmation that the UNCW police had



26/35

26

cleared him from Dr. Snowden’s allegations. Defendants admit that Dr. Cook then approached

Dr. William Fleming about Plaintiff’s concerns, and that Dr. Fleming agreed to look into the

situation. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 41 to his Complaint appears to be a 5

April 2006 e-mail from Dr. William Fleming, UNCW Director of Human Resources, to Plaintiff.

As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 41, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence,

speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 100 are denied.


copy of a 5 April 2006 memorandum from David M. Donaldson, UNCW Chief of Police, to

William Fleming, UNCW Director of Human Resources. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 42, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as



of a 13 April 2006 memorandum from William A. Fleming, UNCW Director of Human

Resources, to Kimberly Cook and Plaintiff. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 43, the




of Dr. Kimberly Cook’s evaluation of Plaintiff for January through December 2005. As to the



104. Defendants admit that Plaintiff first applied for promotion to full professor in



27/35

27

2006 and that Plaintiff claimed ten published peer-reviewed publications since1992 and one

publication accepted for publication in 2006. Defendants further admit that Dr. Cook deleted a

faculty member’s evaluation of Plaintiff and that Dr. Cook assisted Plaintiff by looking into his

concerns about the Dr. Snowden complaint. While Defendants admit that Plaintiff met with Dr.

Cook to discuss his evaluation, Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a

belief as to the specific comments that Dr. Cook made during this meeting; and, therefore, cannot

admit or deny the allegations related to the substance of her comments. Defendants specifically

deny that Dr. Cook told Plaintiff that “everything looks good” for his promotion. Defendants

admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 45 to his Complaint appears to be a copy of Plaintiff’s

Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion, and/or Tenure application. As to the contents

of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 45, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself.


105. Defendants admit that the senior faculty in the Department of Sociology and

Criminal Justice at UNCW and Dr. Kimberly Cook recommended denying Plaintiff a promotion

to full professor. Defendants further admit that Dr. Cook and the Department did not provide

Plaintiff with the reasons their denial of support for his promotion the day after the decision,

based on the UNCW Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure policy in effect at that time. Except


106. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 46 to his Complaint appears to be copies

of e-mails between Plaintiff and Dr. Kimberly Cook on 15 September 2006. As to the contents

of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 46, the documents, to the extent admissible into evidence, speak for



28/35

28

themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 106 are denied.


of an e-mail sent by Plaintiff to Dr. Kimberly Cook on 20 September 2006. As to the contents of




of a 21 September 2006 memorandum from Dr. Kimberly Cook to Plaintiff regarding his

promotion application. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 48, the document, to the extent


are denied.


of a 27 September 2006 memorandum from Plaintiff to Dr. Kimberly Cook on 20 September

2006. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 49, the document, to the extent authentic and


are denied.


of a 29 September 2006 memorandum from Dr. Kimberly Cook to Plaintiff regarding the denial

of his promotion application. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 50, the document, to the



111. Defendants admit that Dr. Randy LaGrange, the most senior member of the



29/35

29

Criminal Justice faculty at that time, served on the tenure committee. Defendants further admit

that Dr. LaGrange believed that the committee’s decision was very difficult, but he agreed with

the ultimate decision. Defendants also admit that when Plaintiff recounted Dr. Cook’s concerns

that Plaintiff was deficient in all three areas, teaching, scholarly research, and service, Dr.

LaGrange may have used an expletive. Defendants admit that Dr. LaGrange believed that

Plaintiff had a strong teaching record, but that Dr. LaGrange believed that Plaintiff’s teaching did

not override Plaintiff’s weakness in the two other areas. Except as admitted, the allegations in



of an 18 December 2006 e-mail from Dr. Kimberly Cook to Plaintiff. As to the contents of



113. Defendants admit that in December 2006, Dr. Cook approved Dr. David Evans’

application for phased retirement with the benefits allowed by that program. Defendants lack

sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to where Dr. Evans resides or as to what

other job he possesses; and, therefore, cannot admit or deny these allegations. Except as


114. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 52 to his Complaint appears to be copies

of December 2006 e-mails between Plaintiff, Randy LaGrange, and other individuals. As to the

contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 52, the documents, to the extent admissible into evidence, speak

for themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 114 are denied.



30/35

30

115. Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 53 to his Complaint appears to contain a

cover letter from Plaintiff’s counsel to the EEOC and charge related documents. As to the

contents of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 53, the documents, to the extent admissible into evidence, speak

for themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 115 are denied.


Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC to Plaintiff, dated 12 March 2007. As to the contents of





FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

First Amendment Retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

119. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 118 of the Complaint are admitted or

denied in paragraphs 1 through 118 of Defendants’ Answer and those responses are realleged as

if fully set forth here.





SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech (Viewpoint

Discrimination) (42 U.S.C. § 1983)



31/35

31








THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Dr. Adam’s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Law) (42

U.S.C. § 1983)








FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Title VII’s Protection Against Religious Discrimination (42 U.S.C. §2000e)






32/35

32





SECOND DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the

Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

THIRD DEFENSE

Many of the Defendants, especially the Trustees, are named strictly in their administrative

or supervisory capacities or pursuant to vicarious liability only. No direct participation or

ratification in the acts or omissions of which Plaintiff complains is alleged or shown. In addition,

the doctrine of respondeat superior does not state a claim under 42 § U.S.C. 1983 cases.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendants did not violate any clearly established right enjoyed by Plaintiff under the

Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore these Defendants in their individual

capacities are entitled to qualified immunity from suit herein.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Title VII claims are untimely to the extent those claims rely on events that

occurred more than 180 days prior to the filing of his charge with the EEOC.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims contained in the Complaint are barred to the extent



33/35

33

they rely on events outside the applicable statutes of limitations.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendants, in their individual capacities, are entitled to good faith immunity from liability

for the imposition of punitive damages arising from Plaintiff's federal law claims.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court:

1. Deny all relief requested in the complaint;

2. Dismiss the complaint in its entirety;

3. Tax all costs of this action and attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff; and

4. Grant Defendants all other relief the Court considers appropriate

Respectfully submitted, this the 14th day of May, 2008.

ROY COOPER

Attorney General

/s/ John P. Scherer II

John P. Scherer II

Assistant Attorney General

N.C. Bar No. 19259

N.C. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

Tel: (919) 716-6920

Fax: (919) 716-6764

E mail: [email protected]

L.R 83.1 Counsel



34/35

34

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FILE NO. 7:07-CV-64(H)

MICHAEL S. ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE TRUSTEES OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH

CAROLINA-WILMINGTON, et

al.,

Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 14 May 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing Answer for

Enlargement of Time with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send

notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF participants:

ROBERT M. SCHMIDT

North Carolina Bar No. 12545Patrick Henry Justice Center

444 South Main Street

Laurinburg, North Carolina 28352

(910) 266–9017

(910) 266–9006—facsimile

[email protected]

LR 83.1 Counsel

DAVID A. FRENCH

Tennessee Bar No. 16692

Kentucky Bar No. 86986Alliance Defense Fund

7141 Old Zion Road

Columbia, Tennessee 38401

(931) 490–0591

(931) 490–7989—facsimile



35/35

[email protected]

BENJAMIN W. BULL (of counsel)

Arizona Bar No. 009940

TRAVIS C. BARHAM

Arizona Bar No. 024867Alliance Defense Fund

15333 N. Pima Rd., Suite 165

Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

(480) 444–0020

(480) 444–0028—facsimile

[email protected]

DAVID J. HACKER

Illinois Bar No. 6283022

Alliance Defense Fund

101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100

Folsom, California 95630

(916) 932–2850

(916) 932–2851—facsimile

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Respectfully submitted,

ROY COOPER

Attorney General

/s/ John P. Scherer II

Assistant Attorney General

N.C. Bar No. 19259

Attorneys for Defendants

N.C. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602

(919) 716-6920

E mail: [email protected]

Adams v UNC-Wilmington - Answer to Amended Complaint Without Exhibits

Documents

Transcript of Adams v UNC-Wilmington - Answer to Amended Complaint Without Exhibits