You are on page 1of 21

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 1 of 21 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DR. PATRICIA H. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

CIV. A. NO. _______________ JURY DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Dr. Patricia H. Davis complains of Southern Methodist Universitys violations of federal law barring sex discrimination and retaliation for protected activity and its breach of contract. Davis claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., as amended, and Texas common law.1 INTRODUCTION 1. Southern Methodist University (SMU) retaliated against Dr. Patricia H. Davis

because she reported sexual harassment, improper conduct by her male supervisor toward female students and staff, and violations of university sexual-harassment policy. Davis feared reprisals but still reported this serious misconduct, acting in good faith and in what she believed was the Universitys best interest. She courageously complained to multiple university administrators from her college dean, to SMUs Title IX coordinator, and eventually to the Presidents office.
1

Davis also has claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, TEXAS LAB. CODE 21.001 et seq., as amended, pending before the Texas Workforce CommissionCivil Rights Division. Davis intends to add Texas Labor Code claims once the statutory period passes.
Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 1

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 2 of 21 PageID 2

SMU responded harshlyas Davis fearedand ultimately terminated her employment on or about September 12, 2012 because of her reports. SMUs retaliation inflicted substantial harm on Davis, and she now seeks to restore her reputation, to obtain injunctive relief, and to be made whole. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 2. 3. Davis is a female citizen of Richardson, Dallas County, Texas. SMU is a Texas nonprofit corporation that conducted business in Texas at all

times material to Daviss claims by, among others, employing Davis and others in Texas. The causes of action asserted below arose from and are connected to purposeful acts by SMU during Daviss employment in Texas. SMU may be served with process through its registered agent, Paul J. Ward, Perkins Administration Building, 6425 Boaz, Dallas, Texas 75275. 4. This court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Daviss claims under 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1343. 5. SMU is located in Dallas, Texas, and a substantial portion of the acts and

omissions underlying Daviss claimsincluding her unlawful terminationoccurred in Dallas, Texas. Venue is proper in this district and division under 28 U.S.C. 1391. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. SMU is a private institution of higher education founded in 1911 in Dallas, Texas.

Each year SMU enrolls 11,000 graduate and undergraduate students in seven colleges (Law, Theology, Art, Business, Education, Engineering, and Humanities and Sciences). Only 31 percent of SMU full-time-faculty was female as of 2012. Of 368 tenured faculty members, only 27 percent are women. Women faculty at the highest rank (full professor) earn on average $6,500 less than their male counterparts. Women at the lowest tenure-eligible rank earn an

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 2

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 3 of 21 PageID 3

average of $10,400 less than their male counterparts. None of the seven current college deans is a woman. 7. SMUs budget was nearly $500 million in 2011-2012. As of May 2012, its

endowment was $1.16 billion. SMU is also a recipient of millions of dollars of annual federal funding through federally-subsidized student loans, research grants and other programs. 8. SMU was at all times relevant to Daviss claims and is now an employer within

the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000-e(b) and a program or activity within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1687. 9. Davis worked with SMU in various capacities for nearly 21 years, including 13

years (7 with tenure) as a professor in Perkins School of Theology. Most recently she served as the Associate Director of the Embrey Human Rights Program. The Embrey Human Rights Program (founded as the Human Rights Education Program [HREP] in 2006) in the Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences, is an interdisciplinary program dedicated to the study of human-rights issues in the DFW area and around the world. Dr. Rick Halperin (Halperin) is the Programs Director. Davis was instrumental in obtaining the original gift to create the HREP, helped organize the Program, helped organize and was a member of the Executive Board, cowrote the by-laws, chaired several strategic plans, designed the curriculum, and wrote successful proposals for grants and for establishing a Human Rights major for undergraduates. She was involved formally or informally with the Program from its inception until her termination. In 2010, SMU appointed Davis the programs Associate Director on a part-time basis.2 On or about May 3, 2012, William M. Tsutsui (Tsutsui), Dean of the Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences, offered Davis a two-year contract for full-time employment as the Associate Director
2

Davis also continued her work as the Director of the Center for Religious Leadership in the Perkins School of Theology.
Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 3

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 4 of 21 PageID 4

through May 31, 2014 (Agreement). The Agreement also guaranteed Daviss annual salary and benefits and defined the positions duties. Davis accepted. 10. Administrators and supervisors at SMU were very supportive and complimentary

of Daviss work for nearly two decades, and her experience with the University was positive. She held various campus-wide positions of responsibility and trust and was elected and served as President of the Faculty Senate. Davis was also at one time a member of the SMU Board of Trustees. SMU President Gerald Turner (Turner) appointed her the co-chair of the Presidents Athletic Council in 2001 and chair of the Title IX section of the Athletic Departments 2009 NCAA Recertification Review. The Recertification Review showed gross inequities between mens and womens sports programs at SMU, and when Davis made her report stressing a need for more funding for womens sportsfor, among other reasons, the safety and wellbeing of the student athletes (one of whom had been struck by a car while training because the Womens Track team didnt have a safe cross-country course)President Turner dismissed it with a laugh, saying [They didnt] need to talk about shoelaces and running tracks here.3 After the report showing gross gender inequities, SMU never assigned Davis to any other university-wide committee. 11. SMUs Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relationships (SHCR) policy

states that it is a serious breach of professional ethics for a teacher to initiate or acquiesce in a sexual relationship with a student who is under the personal supervision of the faculty member. Even consensual relationships between faculty members and students may violate university policy: [SMU] prohibits consensual sexual relationships between a faculty member and a student enrolled in a course taught by the faculty member,
3

Before the review, President Turner made it clear that he expect[ed] a perfect report.

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 4

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 5 of 21 PageID 5

or whose work, academic or otherwise, is supervised by the faculty member The professional relationship between faculty and students is central to the Universitys educational philosophy A consensual sexual relationship between a faculty member and a student, particularly when the faculty member is in a position of power, will irreparably undermine this professional relationship. The issue of power and control over the student remains so strong in a sexual relationship that voluntary consent is improbable and highly questionable... As a result, even where there is no power or authority of the faculty member over the student, consensual sexual relationships are discouraged between faculty/student. The SHCR defines consensual sexual relationships broadly to include amorous or romantic relationships and conduct between members of the University community which passes beyond what a person of ordinary sensibilities would believe to be a collegial or employment relationship. 12. As far back as 2005, Davis had learned of Halperins inappropriate conduct

towards women in his classes, including undergraduate and graduate students. For example, in or about December 2005 while on a group trip to Poland, a female student (Student A) approached Davis about Halperin. Sickened, Student A related how Halperin hadin her wordshit on [her] the night before. Student A wondered if what Halperin had done was proper, or a violation of any rules. As another example, in or about August 2006, Davis observed Halperin alone in his office with an undergraduate woman (Student B). Student B was kneeling behind Halperins desk with him, and when Davis entered, the student jumped up with a start. Both acted embarrassed as if in a compromising situation, and Student B ran out of the office. As still another example, in or about August 2009, a female student (Student C) confided in Davis that Halperin and she (the student) were going out, including meeting for lunches, dinner, and bowling. 13. Almost as soon as they met in 2005, Halperin displayed disturbing tendencies. For

instance, he told Davis that he engaged in peeping (which he also called steam-piping) and
Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 5

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 6 of 21 PageID 6

other lewd activities for recreation (like running around his neighborhood naked and looking in windows). Also, he appeared obsessed with the Nazis (privately giving Nazi salutes, screaming Achtung on the telephone, displaying huge posters of Nazi symbols and events in his office, and watching hours and hours of pictures of bodies and Holocaust death camps on his office television). These things, in addition to his inappropriate conduct toward women involved with the Human Rights Program, concerned Davis. For a time, however, Davis put Halperins private conduct at the back of her mind because his public face was totally different and because the Program was becoming so successful and visible and taking so much time and effort to build. In addition, Davis always hoped that Halperin would see the light and reform his inappropriate behavior. 14. In or about the fall of 2010, the renamed Embrey Human Rights Program

(EHRP) moved to a suite on the first floor of Clements Hall, and Program staff had offices in close proximity for the first time. Shortly after the move, EHRP staff noticed that Halperin often had women in his office behind closed doors and at odd hours. Program associate Sherry Aikman told Davis privately that she never knew what she would find when she came in on weekends. The EHRP therefore instituted a rule that Halperin was not to be alone with anyone in the EHRP suite after business hours, on weekends, or over holidays, and never behind closed doors. Halperin said that he agreed to follow this rule. 15. Despite the rule and his stated agreement, Halperin continued meeting with

female students in his office alone. Davis found him alone with students in the suite and behind closed doors after hours. In addition, Davis heard Halperin engage in inappropriate sexual conversations with students. Daviss office was directly across a narrow hallway from Halperins, so she could hear conversations in his office when the door was open. In or about the

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 6

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 7 of 21 PageID 7

Fall 2010, Davis overheard Halperin in conversation with a female undergraduate student (Student D). Student D began talking about sex and about how she was attracted to Halperin because he was not like other men (always thinking about sex). Student D asked probing questions about his sex life and relationships, and Halperin apparently did nothing to stop the discussion. Afterwards, as diplomatically as she could, Davis warned Halperin that his behavior could jeopardize the EHRP and was an improper violation of teacher-student boundaries. Halperin said that he agreed that he would not have these kinds of conversations in the future. But Davis later heard another conversation between Halperin and a woman graduate student (Student E) relating to explicit sexual scenes in a movie. Davis was growing increasingly uncomfortable with what she began to see as Halperins obvious pattern of inappropriate conduct with female students. These incidents raised serious concerns in her mind of the harm this kind of inappropriate behavior causes to students, of legal violations, and of jeopardy to the new and increasingly visible EHRPwhich was being featured in SMU publications and being especially spotlighted by Dean Tsutsui in meetings, University gatherings, and Dedman College publicityas the fastest growing program at the University and a model program for the entire community. 16. The situation escalated and became more urgent in fall 2011. On or about October

11, 2011, before an evening meeting with important donors, Davis returned to the office to retrieve her cell phone. She unlocked the outside office door and stepped into the reception area to findto her surprisethat the light was on. When Davis looked up, she saw Halperin and Student E embracing. As Davis entered, their eyes widened and Halperin pushed the student away from him. Student E stumbled towards the reception desk with such energy that papers on the desks counter went flying. Both Student E and Halperin were red in the face, and her hair

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 7

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 8 of 21 PageID 8

was in disarray. Both looked very embarrassed, began stammering forced greetings, and picking up the papers. Unprompted, Student E said, Im here to get my paper. Then she picked up her backpack and left. Halperin said nothing after the student left; he just went into his office and closed the door. 17. With great anxiety about what might happen if she said or did anything, Davis

summoned her courage and confronted Halperin the next morning. She asked, What did I see last night? What were you doing with that student? Why were you even with her behind a closed and locked office door? Halperin angrily offered the excuse that he had just locked the door and challenged Daviss morals. He also denied that Student E was a student. When Davis reminded him that Student E said that she was there to pick up a paper, Halperin denied any inappropriate behavior. When she pointed out that this was not the first student with whom he had been inappropriate, Halperin downplayed the situations seriousness (but did not deny it). Instead, he counterattacked. He screamed that Davis was crazy and deeply in need of help. Davis told him that this was not a rational response and that she needed to hear from him about what happened or else she had to tell someone. Halperin responded with his first stated threat against Davis. He attacked her integrity, again called her crazy and deeply troubled, and said that if Davis told anyone, she should begin looking for another job. 18. Two days later, on or about October 14, 2011, Davis met with SMUs Associate

Provost, Linda Eads, for a previously-scheduled dinner. Davis told Eads what she had seen and about Halperins earlier inappropriate conduct. SMUs SHCR policy required Eads at that point, as the appropriate administrative official, to initiate an informal proceeding and take other actions. Rather than respond to the report of serious legal and policy violations, Eads defended

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 8

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 9 of 21 PageID 9

Halperin. Davis is not aware of any follow up action by Eads, and on information and belief, Eads violated SMU policy by doing nothing in response. 19. In or about early February 2012, a woman in SMUs Office of Public Relations

approached Davis and asked to meet over lunch to discuss something that was troubling her. At lunch on or about February 8, 2012, the woman revealed that Halperin had been pursuing her since the previous summer and making her uncomfortable with constant e-mails, phone calls, requests to travel with him, invitations to his apartment, comments about missing and loving her, and sending her suggestive movie clips. The woman said that she was distressed because Halperin had asked her to sit in on his class but that she did not want to because she felt he paid her undue attention that made her uncomfortable, and that she was uncomfortable being near him. The woman and Davis discussed the pattern of women, both students and staff, to whom Halperin gave special attention. The woman mentioned that she had seen Halperin ask a studentStudent E, with whom Davis saw Halperin alone in the office on or about October 11, 2011to come to his office after class one day, because he would be alone at that time. [The class ended at 9:30 p.m.] This conversation reinforced Daviss fears about Halperins behavior, and made her increasingly anxious about the possibilities that the situation was growing worse. 20. In or about early April 2012, several moves signaled Halperins efforts to demote

and eventually oust Davisat precisely the time when Dean Tsutsui had promised her a promotion to Executive Director of the EHRP. On or about April 2, 2012, Halperin emailed Davis out of the blue advising that she was not to attend a United States Department of Justice sponsored conference in Utah where she was scheduled to present a paper. Halperin and Davis had previously discussed this conference and hadDavis thoughtresolved all potential issues with it. Then, on or about April 3, 2012, Davis met with Dean Tsutsui for what she understood

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 9

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 10 of 21 PageID 10

would be a discussion of her promotion to Executive Director and grant of faculty status.4 Instead, Tsutsui shockingly stated that he would not grant Daviss request because Rick doesnt trust you. The Dean also said that Rick had lately been acting unusually agitatedrepeatedly calling, emailing, and asking for meetings with the Deanwith the purpose of convincing Tsutsui to fire Davis.5 This was devastating news for Davis. Halperin and Davis were partners in building the EHRP and achieving national prominence for the program, regardless of their respective titles and rank, and Halperin had, in fact, repeatedly acknowledged that Davis ran the administrative side of the program and oversaw the staff, at his request and according to her job description. In addition, she considered him a professional partner and a close colleague someone with whom she had been in the trenches of building the EHRP. Now he was trying to have her fired because he didnt trust her. 21. After agonizing about it overnight, Davis concluded that Halperins actions could

only be explained by a fear that Davis would report the October 11 incident with Student E. She also realized that unless the Dean or another administrator intervened, Halperin would not only never allow her to be promoted but also not stop trying to have her fired. There was no professional reason for him not to trust her: the EHRP was running smoothly under her administrative oversight; students were flowing into the minor and new major; classes were going well; and Program publicity was very positive (all of which Halperin noted in Daviss
4

In a March 11, 2012 e-mail, Dean Tsustui suggested that they meet in April, which would be a good time [for Davis] to transition to the title Executive Director.
5

Tsutsuis statements were particularly surprising because of his earlier characterization, offered to Davis several times, of Halperin as the Pied Piper. The Pied Piper is a character in a wellknown fairy tale. In revenge against the citizens of Hamelin, he uses his magic flute to lure the towns children away never to be seen again. Given Tsustuis past comments, Davis expected him to act with greater concern about the issues that she was raising. Instead, he evidently failed to follow up on her reports and later approved, acceded to, and/or ratified the termination decision.
Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 10

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 11 of 21 PageID 11

annual performance review dated April 21). Davis wanted the Dean to know the reason for Ricks mistrustnamely, that she had witnessed his inappropriate behavior with Student E and had confronted him about it. She also wanted the Dean to know about what she had heard from the staff member in February and about the situation in the EHRP, including Halperins Nazi behaviors. On or about the morning of April 4, 2012, Davis told Dean Tsutsui about Halperins inappropriate behavior with female students and staff, and the hostile environment that Halperin created in the office with Nazi-related comments, jokes, and memorabilia. Tsutsui responded by email that morning, saying [a]lthough I understand that you are not lodging any formal complaints with your email, I need to affirm to you that alleged violations of SMU policies can and should be reported to the appropriate authorities (me, HR, etc.). The SHCR policy required Dean Tsutsui at that point, as the appropriate administrative official, to initiate an informal proceeding and take other actions. On information and belief, Tsutsui did not take these required measures. Tsutsui violated SMU policy by doing nothing in response. 22. Later on or about April 4, 2012, Dean Tsutsui met with both Halperin and Davis.

After addressing their working relationship, Dean Tsutsui directed Davis to state the concerns she had shared earlier that day. Fearful, Davis hesitated. Tsutsui pushed her to confront Halperin. So Davis mentioned the discomfort caused by his Nazi-related comments and actions. Tsutsui pressed her again, What else? Davis again hesitated because she recalled how furious and threatening Halperin became the last time she confronted him about his behavior with women. But Tsutsui insisted, and Davis said, You need to follow the Program rules about women in the office. Halperin refused, saying that students needed their privacy with him. In response Tsutsui told Halperin that he needed to keep his doors open at all times because when people think of SMU, they think of three people: President Turner, June Jones, and Rick Halperin. Halperin

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 11

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 12 of 21 PageID 12

said that he would follow the Programs policy on keeping his office door open. On information and belief, Tsutsui again violated the SHCR policy, doing nothing more about Daviss complaints. 23. Not long after this meeting a female student (Student F)whose twin sister was

formerly in the EHRPapproached Davis at an evening event to ask if Halperin was coming to the event with a date and if he was married. When Davis asked why she was inquiring, Student F looked down and said, Oh, nothing. I just know he has a reputation with students. This was evidence that Halperins conduct with female students was widely known. 24. In early spring 2012, Davis agreed to Dean Tsutsuis request that she transition

into a full-time position as Executive Director of the EHRP with faculty status beginning June 1, 2012. He said he needed her to devote all her energy to the EHRP as it was developing and expanding so rapidly and becoming so important to Dedman College students. Based on Tsutsuis request, Davis gave notice to Dean William Lawrence of the Perkins School of Theology that she would be leaving the (part-time) position of Director of the Center for Religious Leadership. Davis signed the two-year contract to become EHRPs Associate Director in early May 2012 trusting the Deans assertion that Halperin would eventually agree to Davis receiving the promotion notwithstanding his current opposition. Davis then began transitioning into the full-time EHRP position. 25. On or about May 21, 2012, as Davis was concluding her work at Perkins, Dean

Lawrence wrote to express his and the colleges gratitude for her great success with the Center for Religious Leadership. Lawrence offer[ed] [his] profound gratitude for all that [Davis] accomplished with the Center and expressed his deep respect for the decision Davis made to

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 12

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 13 of 21 PageID 13

move forward with [her] career in pursuit of the initiatives in human rights as a full-time commitment. 26. In or about early June 2012, after Davis had transitioned to full-time status with

the EHRP, Halperin began excluding Davis from EHRP planning meetings. Then, on or about July 16, 2012, Daviss first day back after a 4th of July vacation, Halperin and Davis again met with the Deanat the Deans request. There was no agenda for the meeting but Davis hoped that things had cooled off during the weeks she was away, and they would discuss the promised Executive Director title and faculty status. Instead, it became clear that Tsutsui called the meeting because Halperin was still trying to fire Davis. Halperin claimed that several things [had] happened while she was out for which she deserved to be terminated. The issues were either demonstrably false or so vague that Davis could not respond to them. Later in the meeting, Halperin told Davis that he was demoting her. He said that he was going to drastically reduce Daviss EHRP responsibilities, including by taking away all Program administration, staff supervision, public programming, student advising, and budgetary responsibilities, as well as all work with the EHRP Board. (Halperin later confirmed the demotion by e-mail.) Tsutsui did not comment, nor did he take any action to restore Daviss responsibilities or protect her from this obvious retaliation. After the meeting, Tsutsui characterized the issue as communication problems. 27. Halperins intense hostility and the Deans inaction were again both shocking to

Davis. Davis became convinced that she needed to escalate her complaints and request adequate institutional protection from retaliation. After the July 16 meeting, Davis e-mailed Dean Tsutsui saying that, there is no way to understand Ricks fury with [her] (for such strange stuff) except for the fact that [she] told [Tsutsui] about his harassing behavior with women students and

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 13

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 14 of 21 PageID 14

staffand his Nazi behaviors. Davis also advised Dean Tsutsui that Halperins misconduct was an open secret on campus and that there were indications that he [was] continuing this behavior. She said that she wanted to make a formal complaint. Dean Tsutsui answered by pointing Davis first to Jeff Strese, Director of Human Resources, and then to Beth Wilson, an Associate Vice President and SMUs Title IX Coordinator. Otherwise, Dean Tsutsui gave no indication that he intended to act on Daviss complaints or to investigate the issue as the SHCR required. 28. On or about July 27, 2012, Davis met with Wilson to report Halperins

misconduct and retaliation. After Davis related several incidents involving Halperin, Wilson responded that she felt that this was an issue of trust and then asked How can Rick trust you when you are making complaints of sexual harassment against him? Wilson was a person to whom Davis was supposed to be able to turn under the Universitys policy. Instead, Wilson turned Daviss complaints around and blamed her for Halperins hostile actions. Shocked, Davis said that Halperin is a predatorthat is the issue. Trust is not the issue. Davis also said that the other issue is retaliation, and that Halperin was retaliating against her for confronting him about the graduate student (Student E) in October. Incredibly, Wilson ended the meeting by asking if Davis thought she should investigate. When Davis emphatically said, Yes, Wilson responded that nothing would be done for a while because she was going on vacation. Wilson asked Davis to call [her] back to remind [her] if Davis didnt hear from [Wilson] in a couple of weeks in case she had forgotten. Wilson neither asked Davis for any evidence of Halperins misconduct nor for the names of students or staff who might have relevant information. The SHCR policy required Wilson to submit Daviss complaint to the Faculty Senate Ethics and Tenure Committee

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 14

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 15 of 21 PageID 15

(Faculty Senate ETC) for its consideration and action. On information and belief, Wilson never referred Daviss complaint to the Faculty Senate ETC. 29. After meeting with Wilson, at 1:25 pm on or about July 27, 2012, Davis e-mailed

Wilson with a summary of their conversation. Davis reiterated that: 1) Women students in the EHRP and University staff need to be protectedfrom sexualized conversations, physical intimacy, meetings behind closed and locked doors, and requests for dating/intimacy. 2) The Program needs to be regularizedthrough consultation with H.R., oversight by the Dean, and oversight by our Board so that all functions of the Program are carried out properly, efficiently, and according to established job descriptions. 3) The retaliation by [Halperin] against [her]personally and professionallyneeds to stop. 30. While Wilson was supposed to be investigating, Davis received information that

corroborated her suspicions about the October 2011 incident involving Halperin and Student E. On or about August 7, 2012, Davis learned that Student E was telling people at the church where she worked that she would be leaving soon because Rick Halperin ha[d] promised [her] a position in the Human Rights Program if she would wait a little while. Davis e-mailed Wilson with this information that same night, and stated that, [i]f this is true, it seems to make the appearance of quid pro quo promises by Rick to her seem all the more likely. Davis asked Wilson to interview the student to investigate the potential quid pro quo. Davis never received any indication that Wilson looked into it. 31. Other than an acknowledgment of the August 7 e-mail, Davis heard nothing from

Wilson or anyone else about her complaints for several weeks. On or about August 23, 2012, Wilson called Davis with probing questions about Daviss own relationships with men. Wilson questioned Davis about a supposed personal relationship with an SMU colleague with whom she was working on a project. Wilsons focus on Davisthe messengerindicated that Wilson
Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 15

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 16 of 21 PageID 16

was more interested digging up dirt to try to discredit Davis than in uncovering the truth about Halperins sexual harassment of females and retaliation. 32. By late August 2012, Davis had seen SMU do essentially nothing to investigate

the serious concerns that she was raising. Indeed, Wilsons investigation appeared to be a sham meant to discredit Davis. SMU was doing nothing to curb retaliation against her. So Davis wrote to SMU President Gerald Turner on or about August 23, 2012. The written complaint gave an overview of the issues and complained of retaliation. Almost two weeks passed before President Turner responded on or about September 5, 2012. While he expressed concern over learning of the issues, he said that he would not intervene at that stage. 33. On or about September 7, 2012, two days after President Turners response,

Wilson advised that she had concluded a thorough investigation of Daviss complaints. Ignoring the statements and documents that Davis provided, Wilson claimed that she found no evidence of Halperins improper conduct. Wilson claimed that there were indications that [Davis] made statements that were deliberately false and malicious. Wilson ignored Daviss repeated, clear statements of concern for the University and for a program for which she cared greatly. The letter also included none of the evidence uncovered in her supposed investigation, gave none of the evidence on which she based the conclusion of deliberate and malicious falsehoods, and identified none of the witnesses against Davis. To this day, SMU has withheld the purported evidence against Davis. 34. On or about September 11, 2012, Davis wrote to Wilson requesting an appeal of

Wilsons findings to be heard by the Faculty Senate ETC. (Davis had previously requested clarification of the appeal process, which Wilson referenced in her September 7 letter; she had also requested a timeline for that process. Wilson never clarified the appeal process or timeline.)

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 16

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 17 of 21 PageID 17

On information and belief, Wilson never referred Daviss appeal to anyonemuch less to the Faculty Senate ETC as called for in the SHCR policy. 35. SMU terminated Davis the day after her written request for an appeal. On or

about September 12, 2012, Dean Tsutsui notified Davis in a meeting and by letter that SMU was terminating her effective immediately because of her complaints against Halperin: This letter is to notify you that your appointment as Associate Director of the Embrey Human Rights Program at SMU is being terminated for cause effective immediately due to false accusations of sexual harassment and to your disruptive and detrimental impact on Program operations and your poor working relationships with Program and other SMU staff. You are not eligible for rehire. The termination letter carried out Halperins threat from October 12, 2011 that if Davis told anyone, she should begin looking for another job. Davis did not provide false information to SMU, and she complained in good faith and with a factual basis. The Deans rationale is therefore false and a pretext for unlawful retaliation. 36. SMU claims that it strives to provide an educational and working environment

free of intimidation and harassment for its students, faculty, and staff and to take reasonable action to protect complainants against retaliation. Daviss experience and observations say otherwise. SMUs actions caused her serious harmboth personal and professional, and both economic and non-economic. The harm to Daviss career is severe and lasting. On a personal level, SMUs illegal conduct has caused Davis to suffer anxiety, stress, sleeplessness, elevated blood pressure, symptoms of depression, and other severe emotional distress as the result of this retaliation. 37. On or about December 18, 2012, Davis filed a charge of discrimination and

retaliation against SMU with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Texas Workforce CommissionCivil Rights Division. The EEOC issued a notice of rights letter

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 17

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 18 of 21 PageID 18

on or about January 31, 2013, and this suit is filed within 90 days. Davis exhausted the necessary administrative prerequisites under Title VII. CAUSES OF ACTION A. COUNT ONE: RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII AND TITLE IX 38. 39. Davis incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 37. Davis engaged in protected activity by, among other actions, complaining of

sexual harassment and retaliation, both informally and formally, to multiple University administratorsincluding a college Dean, an Associate Provost, SMUs Director of Human Resources, and its Title IX coordinatorand eventually to the Universitys President. 40. SMUs actions constitute unlawful retaliation under Title VII and Title IX.

Among other actions, SMU demoted Davis and then terminated her because of her protected activity. Moreover, SMU has a pattern and practice of condoning sex discrimination and sexual harassment and retaliating against those who oppose these practices. SMUs unlawful actions were deliberate, willful, and malicious. 41. Davis is entitled to be made whole for any loss caused by SMUs retaliation. She

seeks equitable relief necessary to return her to the position that she would have held absent SMUs unlawful retaliation and to protect her and others from retaliation. 42. SMUs retaliation caused Davis to sufferand she expects yet to suffer

pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and other benefits associated with employment. 43. As a further result of SMUs retaliation, Davis has sufferedand continues to

suffernon-pecuniary losses including, among others, humiliation, damage to professional and

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 18

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 19 of 21 PageID 19

personal reputation, undue stress, anxiety, mental distress and anguish, and other non-pecuniary losses. Accordingly, Davis seeks compensatory damages. 44. SMU acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to Daviss rights.

Accordingly, Davis seeks punitive damages. 45. SMUs retaliation forced Davis to retain counsel in order to redress the harm done

to her. Consequently, Davis seeks attorneys fees, expert costs, and other litigation expenses. B. COUNT TWO: BREACH OF CONTRACT 46. 47. Davis incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45. A written contract existed between Davis and SMU. Adequate consideration

supported the contract, and the parties mutually agreed on all material terms. All conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. SMU is not excused from performing under the contract. 48. SMU agreed to employ Davis as the EHRPs Associate Director for the two year

period beginning June 1, 2012 and guaranteed her salary and benefits. The agreement also specified the positions duties. Davis performed under the agreement, and SMU lacked good cause for terminating Davis 20-plus months before the end of her contract. SMU breached the contract and, as a consequence, Davis suffered losses for which she now sues. 49. Davis is entitled to recover attorneys fees under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

38.001 because hers is claim on a written contract. Davis perfected her right to fees by presenting SMU with a claim for payment. More than 30 days has elapsed and SMU has not tendered payment. SMUs breach forced Davis to retain the services of counsel to prosecute this action. JURY DEMAND 50. Davis requests a jury trial on all issues, claims, actions, and defenses in this case.

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 19

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 20 of 21 PageID 20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Davis prays that SMU be summoned to appear and answer, and that on final trial, judgment be granted against SMU giving Davis: a. b. c. A declaration that SMUs actions violated Title VII and Title IX; Back pay, including but not limited to, lost wages and other employment benefits; Equitable relief necessary to place Davis in the position that she would have held but for SMUs discrimination and retaliation; and, if such relief be infeasible, front pay; Injunctive relief necessary to permanently and forever enjoin SMU from discriminating and retaliating against Davis and others who complain of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or retaliation; Actual damages; Compensatory damages; Punitive damages; Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; Attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs of suit; and Other legal and equitable relief to which Davis may justly be entitled.

d.

e. f. g. h. i. j.

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 20

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13

Page 21 of 21 PageID 21

DATED: April 9 , 2013

Respectfully submitted, GILLESPIE, ROZEN, WATSKY & JONES, P.C. 3402 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75204 Tel.: (214) 720-2009 Fax: (214) 720-2291

By: /s/ Hal K. Gillespie Hal K. Gillespie Attorney-in-Charge Texas Bar No. 07925500 hkg@grwlawfirm.com James D. Sanford Texas Bar No. 24051289 jsanford@grwlawfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR DR. PATRICIA H. DAVIS

Original Complaint and Jury Demand Page 21

You might also like