Great effort has been made to terminate Plaintiff for exerc1smg his constitutional rights. Regardless o f whether his concerns were valid, Plaintiff should not be given the death penalty for expressing them.
Mere days after Plaintiff expressed a “suspected” violation, Dr. Dahmes sent an email to Dr. Landry stating “we need to cut [Plaintiffs] position as soon as possible. After talking with [Plaintiff], it may be time to consult the attorneys.”
The die was thus cast before there was even a meeting with Plaintiff and well before the eventual excuse that Plaintiff failed to attend an alleged mandatory meeting, the only proof of which is Plaintiffs own email which refers to an “invitation”, which the court of appeal refers to more than once as “Dr. Dahmes invitation email.”
That the missed meeting was a pretext is further shown by Dr. Landrys reasons for the termination:
• In his deposition Dr. Landr y testified that Plaintiff was terminated because there was a “general degradation” and “it wasnt specifically, any one specific thing.”
• In his affidavit Dr. Landry attested that the termination was for “acts of insubordination and creation of an unacceptable work environment.”
• At the termination meeting, Dr. Landry stated that Plaintiffwas terminated because he knew that Plaintiff had not “been happy here,” and that the University had to deal with “this.”
It is one thing to declare Plaintiffs complaint meritless, but to then fire him for making the complaint is retaliation. Although Plaintiff obviously made some folks very uncomfortable.
Hughes, J., would grant the writ.