STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY BRANCH 42

JOHN MCADAMS,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 16-CV-003396 Other - Contracts

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY, Case Code: 30303

Defendant,

ANSWER AND A F F I R M A T I V E DEFENSES

Defendant Marquette University ("Marquette"), by its attorneys Gass Weber Mullins

LLC, by Ralph A. Weber and Stephen T. Trigg, answers Plaintiffs Complaint as follows:

Preliminary Statement

Dr. McAdams' extended narrative-style Complaint does not accurately describe the facts

underlying this dispute or the reasons for Marquette University's actions. Attached as Exhibit 1

is the detailed Faculty Hearing Committee Report that was issued following a four-day hearing

involving multiple witnesses and exhibits. The actual facts leading to Dr. McAdams' suspension

are quite different from his Complaint and are detailed in Exhibit 1, as well as Dr. Loveil's letter

of March 24, 2016 (Exhibit 2), and Dr. Lovell's letter of April 13, 2016 (Exhibit 3). In sum. Dr.

McAdams breached his duties when he engaged in seriously irresponsible conduct that fell well

short of the standard of personal and professional excellence followed by University faculties.

As a result, he substantially impaired his fitness as a professor. Moreover, Dr. McAdams seems

unaware of his essential obligations as a professor. These obligations necessarily balance and

inform the academic freedoms enjoyed by University professors, a balance that again Dr.

McAdams ignores.

1. Admit, except and allege that John McAdams has been a tenured Associate

Professor for 29 years.

2. Admit that Marquette is a Catholic and Jesuit university located in downtown

Milwaukee with its administrative offices located at 1250 West Wisconsin Avenue and that it is

currently incorporated under Chapter 181 of the Wisconsin Statutes as a nonstock corporation.

Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 2 to the extent they are inconsistent with the

foregoing admissions.

3. Admit that Marquette's faculty have academic and free speech protections as set

forth in the Faculty Statutes and deny any allegations inconsistent with those Faculty Statutes.

Deny that Dr. McAdams was suspended illegally and deny that Marquette is going to terminate

him.

4. Admit that Professor McAdams has been posting on a blog with that name since

2002 and that on many occasions his posts have been critical of others at Marquette. Lack

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that his

positions are regularly contrary to majority sentiment, and therefore denies same.

5. The allegations of paragraph 5 are a general narrative of Professor McAdams'

alleged viewpoints and beliefs to which no responsive allegation is required. I f a response is

required, Marquette lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the narrative, and therefore denies same.

6. Admit that the November 9, 2014 blog post provided limited, inaccurate and

incomplete information about an after-class discussion between an undergraduate student and the

graduate student instructor. Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 6 to the extent they

are inconsistent with the foregoing admissions.

7. Deny that paragraph 7 accurately describes what occurred.

8. Admit that the after-class discussion was recorded by the undergraduate student.

Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 8 to the extent they are inconsistent with the

foregoing admission.

9. Admit.

10. Deny that paragraph 10 accurately describes what Professor McAdams "had to

say" and deny that the bounds of civil society provide the relevant standard for Dr. McAdams'

conduct toward students at Marquette University. Rather, Dr. McAdams' conduct is measured

against the standard of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes

University faculties - a standard his tenured faculty peers found unanimously he failed to meet.

Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 10 to the extent they are inconsistent with the

foregoing admissions.

11. Deny.

12. Admit.

Professor McAdams' Contract with Marquette

13. Admit that Dr. McAdams is a tenured Associate Professor at Marquette.

14. Admit, and allege that Dr. McAdams' compensation and rank were continued

through the President's decision up until April 1, 2016, regardless of whether a reappointment

letter was issued.

15. Admit, and allege that the Contract requires Dr. McAdams to satisfy multiple

duties as a faculty member, which he did not do.

16. Admit that § 304.02 of the Faculty Statutes contains the quoted language.

Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 16 to the extent they are inconsistent with the

foregoing admission.

17. The allegation does not accurately describe all grounds for suspension or

termination of a faculty member, but admit that the proceedings against Dr. McAdams were for

discretionary cause.

18. Admit.

19. Admit that discretionary (not absolute) cause is at issue. Deny that termination is

at issue.

20. Admit.

21. Admit.

22. Admit that Chapter 307 of the Faculty Statutes contains the procedures governing

nonrenewal, suspension and/or termination of tenured faculty, and that Section 307.07(2)

contains the quoted language. Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 22 to the extent

they inconsistent with the foregoing admissions.

First Claim

23. Marquette realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

24. Admit that Dean Holz wrote Exhibit B attached to the Complaint. Deny that this

letter suspended or banned Dr. McAdams.

25. Admit that Exhibit B includes the quoted language.

26. Admit that Exhibit B includes the quoted language.

27. Admit that a statement included the quoted excerpts. Deny that this paragraph

accurately describes the statement.

28. Admit.

29. Admit.

30. Admit what AAUP is and that the items listed are within its stated mission.

31. Admit.

32. Admit that an investigating committee in the 1966 case of St. John's University

issued a report with language similar to that used in paragraph 32. Marquette denies the

allegations of paragraph 32 to the extent they are inconsistent with the foregoing admission.

33. The allegations of paragraph 33 are a general narrative to which no responsive

allegation is required. I f a response is required, Marquette denies the allegations insofar as they

are alleged to apply to Dr. McAdams.

34. The allegations of paragraph 34 are a general narrative to which no responsive

allegation is required. I f a response is required, Marquette denies the allegations insofar as they

are alleged to apply to Dr. McAdams.

35. The allegations of paragraph 35 are a general narrative to which no responsive

allegation is required. I f a response is required, Marquette denies the allegations insofar as they

are alleged to apply to Dr. McAdams.

36. The allegations of paragraph 36 are a general narrative to which no responsive

allegation is required. I f a response is required, Marquette denies the allegations insofar as they

are alleged to apply to Dr. McAdams.

37. Admit that Chapter 307 of the Faculty Statutes contains the procedures governing

nonrenewal, suspension and/or termination of tenured faculty, and that Section 307.07(2) states

that "[a] facuhy member who has been awarded tenure at Marquette University may only be

dismissed upon a showing of absolute or discretionary cause." Marquette denies the allegations

of paragraph 37 to the extent they inconsistent with the foregoing admissions.

38. Deny.

39. Deny that Exhibit B is a suspension within the meaning of the Faculty Statutes

and therefore deny the allegations of paragraph 39.

40. Admit that Exhibit C is attached to the Complaint. Deny that Exhibit C

accurately describes Exhibit B and the Faculty Statutes.

41. Admit that Exhibit C includes the quoted excerpt, and otherwise deny the

allegations of paragraph 41.

42. Deny.

43. Deny.

44. Deny.

45. Deny.

Second Claim

46. Marquette realleges and incorporates by reference the responses to the previous

paragraphs of the Complaint.

47. Marquette admits the allegations of paragraph 47, except denies that the

suspension commencing on April 1, 2016 was a "new suspension."

48. Deny.

49. Deny.

50. Deny that this is an accurate or complete definition of academic fi-eedom.

51. Deny that this is an accurate or complete definition of academic fi-eedom "as a

legal term" and as applied to the instant dispute.

52. Deny that this is an accurate or complete definition of the reasons for and benefits

of academic freedom.

53. Deny that this accurately describes what professors may and may not do with the

benefits, protections and duties of academic freedom.

54. Deny.

55. Deny.

Third Claim

56. Marquette realleges and incorporates by reference the responses to the previous

paragraphs of the Complaint.

57. Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 57 to the extent they are

inconsistent with Chapter 307 of the Faculty Statutes.

58. Admit.

59. Marquette denies the allegations of paragraph 59 in so far as Dr. McAdams

maintained his rank, salary and benefits up through the date of his suspension on April 1, 2016.

60. Deny.

61. Deny.

62. Deny.

63. Deny.

Fourth Claim

64. Marquette realleges and incorporates by reference the responses to the previous

paragraphs of the Complaint.

65. Deny that this paragraph accurately describes President Lovell's March 24, 2016

letter, which is attached as Exhibit 2.

66. Deny the characterization of the letter. Admit that Dr. McAdams has advised

Marquette that he refuses to recognize his essential obligations as a University professor.

67. Deny.

68. Admit the first sentence of paragraph 68. Deny the second sentence.

69. Deny that Marquette's request that a professor recognize his essential obligations

to students can be characterized as "coercion" and otherwise deny the allegations of paragraph

69.

70. Deny.

71. Deny.

72. Deny.

73. Deny.

Fifth Claim

74. Marquette realleges and incorporates by reference the responses to the previous

paragraphs of the Complaint.

75. Admit that the Faculty Statutes have procedural protections. Deny that Dr.

McAdams is terminated.

76. Deny.

77. Deny.

78. Deny.

79. Admit that the Facuhy Hearing Committee scheduled its hearing in September

2015 pursuant to the process and schedule set forth in the Faculty Statutes and otherwise deny

the allegations of paragraph 79.

80. Admit.

81. Admit that the quoted excerpts appear in the Faculty Statutes and allege that

Marquette fiilly complied with its obligations.

82. Deny.

83. Admit that a request that went well beyond the scope contemplated by the Faculty

Statutes was made in a February 6, 2015 letter. Deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 83.

84. Allege that Marquette made available for interview each witness it called at the

hearing who was under its control. Ms. Abb ate declined to be interviewed by Dr. McAdams'

lawyers. Drs. Luft, Snow and Donaldson did not testify, nor did any students. Deny that

Marquette in any way departed from the procedures set forth in the Faculty Statutes.

85. See response to paragraph 84. Admit that a handful of documents such as emails

submitted in advance in accord with the Faculty Statutes contained "information" from witnesses

who did not testify, all in accord with the Faculty Statutes. Deny the remaining allegations of

paragraph 85.

86. Admit that a request that went well beyond the scope contemplated by the Faculty

Statutes was made in a February 6, 2015 letter. Deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 86.

87. Deny that any relevant requested information within the scope of the Faculty

Statutes was not turned over, as so found by the Faculty Hearing Committee. See Exhibit 1 at

pages 148-149.

88. Deny that any relevant requested information within the scope of the Faculty

Statutes was not turned over, as so found by the Faculty Hearing Committee. See Exhibit 1 at

pages 148-149.

89. Deny that Marquette appointed anyone to the Faculty Hearing Committee. That

process and the resolution of any objections was carried out by the Academic Senate, a group of

Dr. McAdams' peers. The Faculty Hearing Committee addressed and rejected Dr. McAdams'

request that Dr. Turner recuse herself See Exhibit 1 at pages 145-147. Deny that the Faculty

Statutes were violated.

90. Deny.

91. Deny.

92. Deny.

Sixth Claim

93. Marquette realleges and incorporates by reference the responses to the previous

paragraphs of the Complaint.

94. Admit.

95. Deny.

96. Admit that Dr. South was asked to gather information for Dean Holz, admit that

Dr. McAdams had criticized Dr. South in his blog and that Dr. South had previously made a

complaint to the Marquette Provost regarding a prior blog post by Dr. McAdams, and otherwise

deny the allegations of paragraph 96.

97. Admit.

98. Deny.

99. Deny.

10

100. Deny.

101. Deny.

102. Deny.

103. Deny that Marquette appointed anyone to the Faculty Hearing Committee. That

process and the resolution of any objections was carried out by the Academic Senate, a group of

Dr. McAdams' peers. The Faculty Hearing Committee addressed and rejected Dr. McAdams'

request that Dr. Turner recuse herself See Exhibit 1 at pages 145-147. Deny that the Faculty

Statutes were violated.

104. Deny.

105. Deny.

106. Deny, and allege that Dr. McAdams' compensation and rank were continued

through the President's decision up until April 1, 2016, regardless of whether a reappointment

letter was issued.

107. Deny.

A F F I R M A T I V E DEFENSES

1. Dr. McAdams materially breached his contractual duties and is being disciplined

in full accord with his contract.

2. Dr. McAdams failed to mitigate his damages.

3. Marquette reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the parties

conduct discovery in this lawsuit.

WHEREFORE, Marquette University requests that the Complaint be dismissed on its

merits and that it be awarded its costs, statutory attorney fees and all other appropriate relief

A JURY T R I A L OF 12 P E O P L E IS R E Q U E S T E D

11

Dated: May IS, 2016 GASS WEBER MULLINS LLC Attorneys for Marquette University

Ralph A. Weber, SBN 1001563 Stephen T. Trigg, SBN 1075718 309 North Water Street, Suite 700 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (T): 414-223-3300 (F): 414-224-6116 weber@gwmlaw. com trigg@gwmlaw. com

12