Wiggington File

Case: 3:15-cv-00093-NBB Doc #: 144 Filed: 10/31/17 1 of 3 PageID #: 2511
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
MICHAEL WIGGINGTON, JR. PLAINTIFF
V Civil Case No. 3:15CV093-NBB-RP
THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI,

CHANCELLOR DANIEL W. JONES individually
and in his official capacity as Chancellor,
PROVOST MORRIS H. STOCKS' individually
and in his official capacity as Provost, DEAN JOHN Z' KISS'
individuatly and in his official capacity as Dean, DEAN
VELMER BURTON, individually and in his
official capacity as Dean, CHAIR ERIC LAMBERT'
individually and in his official capacity as
Department Chair DEFF],NDANTS
JI'RY VERDTCT
Ouestion No. I
Has Dr. Wigginton proved that, but for his age, the defendant University of Mississippi would not have denied
his application for tenure and promotion and subsequently terminated his employment?
Yes- ur-y'
Ouestion No, 2
Did Defendant Lambert deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application
for tenure and promotion?
Y", \r/ No
Question \o. 3
Did Defendant Burton deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application
for tenure and promotion?
Yes ! No
uestion o
Did Defendant Kiss deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application for
tenure and promotion?
V", ( No
Ouestion No. 5
Did Defendant Stocks deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application
for ?
Ye
Ouestion No. 6
Did Defendant Jones deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application for
tenure and o romotion?
Y", a/ No
If you have answered "No" to a// ofthe above, please stop and inform the Court.
Ifyou have answered "Y es" to any of the above, please continue filling out this form.
Ouestion No. 7
Did Dr. Wigginton suffer damages as a result ofDefendant's deprivation of his due process rights?
Yes _{_ No
Ouestion No, 8
What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Dr. Wigginton for the
damages, ifany, you have found Defendant's wrongful conduct, ifany, caused Dr. Wigginton?
Answer in dollars and cents lor the following items, and no others:
1. Past wages and benefits from May 1, 2014 to present.

oo
$
2. Past pain and sufferin!, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss ofenjoyment of life.
r'so
-Z-
S 0
3. Future pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss ofenjoyment of life
oo-
$ r00
("v
Foreperson
\0-91-11
Date
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MICHAEL WIGGINTON, JR. PLAINTIFF
V. CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3:15-CV-093-NBB-RP
THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, CHANCELLOR

DAN JONES, PROVOST MORRIS STOCKS, DEAN JOHN
KISS, DEAN VELMER BURTON, AND CHAIR ERIC
LAMBERT DEFENDANTS
PRETRIAL ORDER
1. A pretrial conference was held on September 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States
Courthouse in Oxford, Mississippi before United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy
2. The following counsel appeared:
a. For the Plaintiff:
Sam Begley BEGLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC 601-969-5545

P.O. Box 287
Jackson, MS 39205
sbegley1@bellsouth.net
Keith Flicker Flicker, Garelick & Assoc. 212-319-5240

45 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
kflicker@flickergarelick.com
tlamb@flickergarelick.com
b. For the Defendants:
J. Cal Mayo, Jr. Mayo Mallette, PLLC 662-236-0055

Paul B. Watkins, Jr. P.O. Box 1456
Oxford, MS 38655
cmayo@mayomallette.com
pwatkins@mayomallette.com
c. For the Defendant Eric Lambert, Individually:
Joyce Freeland Freeland Law Firm 662-234-3414

P.O. Box 269
Oxford, MS 38655
joyce@freelandlawfirm.com
3. The pleadings are amended to conform to this pretrial order.
4. The following claims (including claims stated in the complaint, counterclaims,

crossclaims, third-party claims, etc.) have been filed:
Plaintiff filed the following claims against Defendants:
Deprivation of contractual property rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42

U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1988;
Deprivation of property interest in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C.
1988;
Deprivation of liberty interests in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C.
1988;
Discrimination on the basis of sex, race and color in violation of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S.C. Const. Amend. 14;
Retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, U.S.C. Const. Amend. 1;
Discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and color in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq,;
Discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.S. 621, et seq.;
Deprivation of contractual property rights in violation of Section Fourteen of
the Mississippi Constitution;
Deprivation of property interest in violation of Section Fourteen of the
Mississippi Constitution; and
Breach of contract.
5. The basis for this courts jurisdiction is:
Plaintiffs case arises under the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. section 621, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. section
1981a. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343.
Moreover, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under
28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).
6. The following jurisdictional questions remain:
Whether Defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity

Whether this Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims presented by Plaintiff
7. The following motions remain pending:
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Dissimilar Employment Decisions [Doc.

115];
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Plaintiffs Qualification for Tenure
[Doc. 116];
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Miscellaneous Allegations [Doc. 117];
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Plaintiffs Alleged Lost Wages [Doc.
118];
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Plaintiffs Alleged Medical Damages
[Doc. 119]; and
Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Private and Unrelated Information [Doc.
122].
8. The parties accept the following concise summaries of the ultimate facts as claimed by:
a. Plaintiff:
Plaintiff was employed as an Assistant Professor at the University of Mississippi

(University) in the Department of Legal Studies for over six years. He joined the
Universitys Department of Legal Studies (Department) as a tenure-track
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice on August 21, 2008. Under Plaintiffs
contract with the University, he became eligible for tenure and promotion during
his sixth full year of employment. Upon eligibility in the 2013-2014 academic year,
Plaintiff promptly commenced the tenure and promotion application process.
Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was discriminatorily discredited

because of his race, age, internal disagreement with his constitutionally protected
free speech, and Defendants unlawful attempts to clean house. Ultimately,
Plaintiffs application was denied because of Defendants arbitrary and capricious
decisions.
Specifically, on or about November 8, 2013, the Promotion and Tenure Committee

for the Department of Legal Studies voted 5-2 in favor of Plaintiffs tenure and
promotion application. Subsequently, Defendant Lambert recommended denying
Plaintiffs tenure and promotion application, ignoring the Promotion and Tenure
Committee for the Department. On or about December 4, 2013, an Advisory
Committee to the Dean convened and recommended approval of Plaintiffs tenure
and promotion application by a vote of 3-2. Nevertheless, on or about December
9, 2013, Defendant Burton recommended that Plaintiffs tenure and promotion
application be denied, contradicting the recommendation of his own Advisory
Committee. Likewise, on or about January 13, 2014, Defendant Kiss
recommended denying Plaintiffs tenure and promotion application. On or about
March 20, 2014, Defendant Stocks also recommended denying Plaintiffs tenure
and promotion application.
Plaintiff appealed Defendant Stocks decision to the University Tenure and

Promotion Appeals Committee (Committee) which held a hearing on April 14,
2014. In its April 17, 2014 decision, the Committee found that the University acted
in an arbitrary and capricious manner regarding its review of Plaintiffs tenure and
promotion application. Despite the decision of the Committee, on May 1, 2014,
Defendant Jones denied Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion and
refused to extend Plaintiffs probationary period.
b. Defendant:
In Mississippis public university system, certain faculty members are eligible to

apply for tenure and promotion after they complete a probationary period. At
the University of Mississippi, tenure applicants prepare a portfolio demonstrating
their activity and work product during the probationary period. Under the
Universitys written tenure policy, various persons evaluate the portfolio for
evidence of the applicants achievement in three areas: research and scholarly
activity, teaching, and service. The Universitys Chancellor considers
recommendations from these reviewers and decides whether or not to nominate
the applicant for tenure to the Board of Trustees for the Mississippi Institutions of
Higher Learning. Once awarded tenure, a faculty member is entitled to continued
employment absent certain extraordinary circumstances.
The University hired Michael Wigginton in 2008 as a tenure-track associate

professor in the Department of Legal Studies within the School of Applied
Sciences. After his five-year probationary period, he applied for tenure and
promotion to the rank of assistant professor in 2013. After reviewing Wiggintons
tenure portfolio, the Chair of his Department, the Dean of his School, the Dean of
the Graduate School, and the Universitys Provost all concluded that Wigginton
had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of research and scholarly activity to
support an award of tenure.
Chancellor Dan Jones then reviewed Wiggintons portfolio and the

recommendations from the other University administrators and declined to
nominate Wigginton for tenure and promotion. Chancellor Jones wrote that
Wiggintons number of peer-reviewed publications is low and there is no
evidence of scholarly impact. Wigginton appealed to the IHL Board, which took
no action to overturn Chancellor Jones decision.
9. a. The following facts are established by the pleadings, by stipulation, or by

admission:
(1) Plaintiff joined the Department of Legal Studies at Defendant University of

Mississippi as an Assistant Professor in 2008; and
(2) Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was denied, and he was
issued a one-year terminal contract in 2014. His employment with the
University ended in 2015.
b. The contested issues of fact are as follows:
(1) Whether Defendants evaluated Plaintiffs tenure and promotion dossier in

accordance with controlling University Guidelines;
(2) Whether the denial of Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was
unlawfully discriminatory;
(3) Whether Defendants unlawful discrimination was intentional and/or willful;
(4) Whether the denial of Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was
arbitrary and capricious;
(5) Whether an unlawful policy of discrimination towards faculty members

based upon their age, sex, race, color and gender was instituted following
Defendant Velmer Burtons employment with Defendant University;
(6) Whether Defendants denial of Plaintiffs application for tenure and

promotion and subsequent termination was intended to act as retaliation for
Plaintiffs exercise of his right to free speech under the First Amendment;
(7) Whether Defendants basis for denying Plaintiffs application for tenure and
promotion was pretext for their unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex,
race, color, gender, and age;
(8) Whether Defendants omission, if any, of portions of Plaintiffs service

background from consideration of Plaintiffs application for tenure and
promotion was willful and intended to act as a pretext for unlawful
discrimination based upon Plaintiffs sex, race, color, gender and age;
(9) Whether Plaintiff was qualified for tenure;
(10) Whether the Defendant University breached a contract with Plaintiff.
(11) Whether and to what extent Plaintiff suffered damages.
(12) Whether Plaintiffs claimed damages were caused by Defendants actions.
(13) Whether Plaintiff appropriately mitigated any alleged damages.
c. The contested issues of law are as follows:
(1) Whether Plaintiff engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment.

(2) Whether individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
(3) Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs age discrimination and
state law claims.
(4) Whether Plaintiff may obtain injunctive relief related to his denial of
tenure without having named the Universitys current Chancellor or the
members of the IHL Board as parties.
10. The following is a list and brief description of all exhibits (except exhibits to be used for
impeachment purposes only) to be offered in evidence by the parties. Each exhibit has
been marked for identification and examined by counsel.
a. To be offered by the Plaintiff:
P-1 The University of Mississippi Tenure Policies and Procedures

P-2 The School of Applied Science Guidelines and Procedures for Annual,
Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Reviews
P-3 The Department of Legal Studies Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion
P-4 Plaintiffs 2008-2009 Faculty Activity & Evaluation
P-9 Defendant Lamberts November 17, 2013 Letter Denying Plaintiffs
Application for Tenure and Promotion
P-10 Defendant Lamberts November 17, 2013 Letter Denying Plaintiffs
P-11 Defendant Burtons December 9, 2013 Letter Denying Plaintiffs
P-12 Defendant Kisss January 3, 2014 Letter Denying Plaintiffs Application for
Tenure and Promotion
P-13 Defendant Stocks March 27, 2014 Letter Denying Plaintiffs Application
for Tenure and Promotion
P-14 Defendant Joness May 1, 2014 Letter Denying Plaintiffs Application for
P-15 Defendant Joness May 8, 2014 Letter Denying Plaintiffs Application for
P-16 Defendant Joness June 17, 2014 Letter Terminating Plaintiffs
Employment
P-17 April 17, 2014 Tenure and Promotion Appeals Committee
Recommendation
P-18 March 7, 2013 Letter from Defendant Burton to Plaintiff Nominating
Plaintiff for the Thomas A. Crowe Outstanding Faculty Award
P-19 Medical Records maintained by Plaintiffs Treatment Providers, including:
Dr. S. Todd Threadgill; Dr. Charles Hill; and Baptist Memorial Hospital
North-Mississippi
P-20 The Discrimination Charge of Michael Wigginton

P-21 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Right to Sue
P-22 External Recommendation Letter of Dr. Ida M. Johnson
P-23 External Recommendation Letter of Dr. David Gladstone
P-24 External Recommendation Letter of Dr. Lisa S. Nored
P-25 External Recommendation Letter of Dr. Greg S. Weaver
P-26 The University of Mississippi Faculty Senate Minutes, dated December 10,
2013
P-27 The University of Mississippi Faculty Senate Minutes, dated March 4, 2014
P-28 The University of Mississippi Faculty Senate Minutes, dated September 16,
2014
P-29 Burton, Jr., Velmer S., How to Be a Successful Administrator, J. Contemp.
Crim. Just. 409 (2015)
P-30 Payment Information for 2008-2009 Academic Year
P-37 Deans Advisory Council Vote
P-38 Plaintiffs Application for Tenure and Promotion
P-39 Thomas Crowe Award Nomination Letter and Letters of Recommendation
P-40 Vote of tenured and Eligible Faculty Considered by Department Chair
P-41 Recommendation Letter of R. Alan Thompson
P-42 Faculty Peer Reviews for Plaintiff
P-43 Graduate Student Teacher Reviews for Plaintiff
P-44 Undergraduate Student Teacher Reviews for Plaintiff
P-45 Plaintiff June 26, 2014 Letter to Commissioner of IHL
P-46 Defendant Lambert Response to Allegations raised by Plaintiff in Appeal
of Application for Tenure and Promotion
P-47 University of Mississippi General Counsel Statement Regarding Tenure and
Promotion Review
P-48 Plaintiff Request for Hearing and Review of Negative Tenure
Recommendation
P-49 University Summary of Plaintiffs Claim
P-50 University EEOC Position Statement
P-51 Plaintiffs Curriculum Vitae
P-52 Heinrich Recommendation Letter for Thomas Crowe Outstanding Faculty
Award
P-53 Department of Legal Studies Recommendation regarding Application of
Plaintiff
P-54 June 4, 2013 E-mail from Stephen Mallory regarding Concerns of Faculty
P-55 July 9, 2013 E-mail from Defendant Burton regarding Weight of External
Reviewers Opinion
P-56 Defendant Lambert August 21, 2013 E-Mail Approving External Review
Board
P-57 October 2, 2013 E-mails Regarding Tenure and Promotion Binder
P-58 December 2, 2013 E-mail Regarding Refusal to Release Tenure Dossier
P-59 April 1, 2014 E-mail Regarding Faculty Disputes
P-60 October 2015 Correspondence Regarding Selection of Professor to Replace
Plaintiff
P-61 November 4, 2015 E-mail Regarding Defendant Burtons Selection of
Faculty to Replace Plaintiff
P-62 Description of Thomas Crowe Outstanding Faculty Award
P-63 Department Chair Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application
of Professor Jensen
P-64 Dean Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of Professor
Jensen
P-65 Defendant Kiss Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of
Professor Jensen
of Professor Keena
Keena
Professor Keena
of Professor Mongue
Mongue
Professor Mongue
P-72 IHL Policies and Bylaws
P-73 Tenure and Promotion Review Committee Checklists
The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are

stipulated. If the authenticity or admissibility of any of the preceding exhibits is
objected to, the exhibit must be identified below, together with a statement of the
specified evidentiary ground(s) for the objection(s):
P-18 relevance, hearsay

P-19 relevance, impermissible opinion testimony (Motion in Limine, Doc. 119)
P-20 contains hearsay statements
P-22 foundation, hearsay, impermissible opinion testimony
P-26 authenticity, foundation, relevance

P-29 relevance
P-37 foundation
P-39 relevance, probative value substantially outweighed by confusion or
prejudice to Defendants
P-40 foundation
P-42 relevance, foundation, hearsay, probative value substantially outweighed
by confusion, impermissible opinion testimony
P-45 hearsay
P-47 hearsay, foundation, probative value substantially outweighed by
confusion
P-48 hearsay
P-49 foundation
by confusion
P-51 duplicative
P-52 relevance, probative value substantially outweighed by confusion or
P-53 foundation
P-54 hearsay, relevance, probative value substantially outweighed by prejudice
to Defendants
P-55 hearsay
P-56 hearsay
P-57 hearsay
to Defendants
to Defendants
to Defendants
to Defendants
P-62 relevance, foundation, probative value substantially outweighed by
P-63 relevance, hearsay, impermissible opinion testimony

P-72 relevance, foundation
P-73 foundation, hearsay
b. To be offered by the Defendant:
D-1 May 8, 2014, Dan Jones Tenure Memo

D-2 IHL Tenure Policy
D-3 University of Mississippi Tenure Policy
D-4 School of Applied Sciences Tenure Policy
D-5 Department of Legal Studies Tenure Policy
D-6 November 17, 2013, Lambert Tenure Memo
D-7 December 9, 2013, Burton Tenure Letter
D-8 January 3, 2014, Kiss Tenure Memo
D-9 March 27, 2014, Stocks Tenure Memo
D-10 April 17, 2014, Appeal Committee Memo
D-11 June 17, 2014, Letter from Jones to Wigginton
D-12 Troy University Employment Contracts
D-13 UM Employment Contracts
D-14 USM Employment Contract
D-15 Wigginton Curriculum Vitae
D-16 May 1, 2014 Dan Jones letter
The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are

stipulated. If the authenticity or admissibility of any of the preceding exhibits is
objected to, the exhibit must be identified below, together with a statement of the
specified evidentiary ground(s) for the objection(s):
11. The following is a list and brief description of charts, graphs, models, schematic diagrams,
and similar objects which will be used in opening statements or closing arguments, but
which will not be offered in evidence:
Objections, if any, to use of the preceding objects are as follows:
If any other objects are to be used by any party, such objects will be submitted to opposing
counsel at least three business days before trial. If there is then any objection to use of the
objects, the dispute will be submitted to the court at least one business day before trial.
12. The following is a list of witnesses the parties anticipate calling LIVE at trial (excluding
witnesses to be used solely for rebuttal or impeachment). All listed witnesses must be
present to testify when called by a party unless specific arrangements have been made with
the trial judge before commencement of trial. The listing of a Will Call witness constitutes
a professional representation, upon which opposing counsel may rely, that the witness will
be present at trial, absent reasonable written notice to counsel to the contrary. If testimony
is to be offered via deposition, state whether the entire deposition, or only portions, will be
used. Counsel must confer, no later than twenty-one days before the commencement of
trial, to resolve all controversies concerning all depositions (electronically recorded or
otherwise). All controversies not resolved by the parties must be submitted to the trial
judge not later than fourteen days before trial. All objections not submitted within that
time are waived.
a. By Plaintiff:
[F]act/
Will/ [E]xpert
May [L]iability/
Name Call [D]amages City/State
Michael Wigginton, Jr. Will F, L, D Slidell, Louisiana
Daniel W. Jones May F, L Jackson, Mississippi
Morris H. Stocks May F, L University, Mississippi
John Z. Kiss May F, L Greensboro, NC
Velmer Burton May F, L Little Rock, AR
Eric Lambert May F, L Reno, NV
Dr. David McElreath May F, L, D University, Mississippi
Dr. Stephen Mallory May F, L, D University, Mississippi
Dr. Carl Jensen May F, L, D Charleston, South Carolina
Dr. Robert Mongue May F, L, D University, Mississippi
Dr. Lori Williamson May F, L, D University, Mississippi
Dr. Gay Marie Barnard May F, L, D University, Mississippi
Dr. Linda Keena May F, L, D University, Mississippi
Dr. Michael Barnett May F, L University, Mississippi
Dr. Noel Wilkin May F, L University, Mississippi
Dr. S. Todd Threadgill May F Oxford, Mississippi
Dr. Charles Hill May F Oxford, Mississippi
Carol M. Boyd, May F,L,D University, Mississippi

Ed.D., LCSW
b. By Defendants
[F]act/
Will/ [E]xpert
May [L]iability/
Name Call [D]amages City/State
Eric Lambert M F/L Reno, NV
Velmer Burton M F/L Little Rock, AR
John Kiss M F/L Greensboro, NC
Morris Stocks M F/L Oxford, MS
Dan Jones M F/L Jackson, MS
Mark Loftin M F/L Oxford, MS
Jan Bounds M F/L Oxford, MS
Linda Keena M F/L Oxford, MS
13. This is a jury case.
14. Counsel suggests the following additional matters to aid in the disposition of this civil
action: None.
15. Counsel estimates the length of the trial will be 5 days.
16. As stated in paragraph 1, this pretrial order has been formulated (a) at a pretrial conference
before a judicial officer, notice of which was duly served on all parties, and at which the
parties attended as stated above, or (b) the final pretrial conference having been dispensed
with by the judicial officer, as a result of conferences between the parties. Reasonable
opportunity has been afforded for corrections or additions prior to signing. This order will
control the course of the trial, as provided by Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and it may not be amended except by consent of the parties and the court, or by order of
the court to prevent manifest injustice.
ORDERED, this the 17th day of October, 2017.
_/s/ Neal Biggers _________

NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
____/s/ Keith L. Flicker___________

Attorney for Plaintiff
____/s/ Mike Farrell______________

Attorney for Plaintiff
___/s/ Paul B, Watkins, Jr._________

Attorney for Defendants
Entry of the preceding Pretrial Order is recommended by me on this, the 17th day of
October, 2017.
/s/ Roy Percy__________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Wiggington File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wiggington File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 3:15-cv-00093-NBB Doc #: 144 Filed: 10/31/17 1 of 3 PageID #: 2511

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MICHAEL WIGGINGTON, JR. PLAINTIFF

V Civil Case No. 3:15CV093-NBB-RP

THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI,

1. Past wages and benefits from May 1, 2014 to present.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MICHAEL WIGGINTON, JR. PLAINTIFF

THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, CHANCELLOR

2. The following counsel appeared:

a. For the Plaintiff:

Sam Begley BEGLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC 601-969-5545

Keith Flicker Flicker, Garelick & Assoc. 212-319-5240

b. For the Defendants:

J. Cal Mayo, Jr. Mayo Mallette, PLLC 662-236-0055

c. For the Defendant Eric Lambert, Individually:

Joyce Freeland Freeland Law Firm 662-234-3414

3. The pleadings are amended to conform to this pretrial order.

4. The following claims (including claims stated in the complaint, counterclaims,

Plaintiff filed the following claims against Defendants:

Deprivation of contractual property rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42

5. The basis for this courts jurisdiction is:

6. The following jurisdictional questions remain:

Whether Defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity

7. The following motions remain pending:

Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Dissimilar Employment Decisions [Doc.

Plaintiff was employed as an Assistant Professor at the University of Mississippi

Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was discriminatorily discredited

Specifically, on or about November 8, 2013, the Promotion and Tenure Committee

Plaintiff appealed Defendant Stocks decision to the University Tenure and

In Mississippis public university system, certain faculty members are eligible to

The University hired Michael Wigginton in 2008 as a tenure-track associate

Chancellor Dan Jones then reviewed Wiggintons portfolio and the

9. a. The following facts are established by the pleadings, by stipulation, or by

(1) Plaintiff joined the Department of Legal Studies at Defendant University of

b. The contested issues of fact are as follows:

(1) Whether Defendants evaluated Plaintiffs tenure and promotion dossier in

(3) Whether Defendants unlawful discrimination was intentional and/or willful;

(5) Whether an unlawful policy of discrimination towards faculty members

(6) Whether Defendants denial of Plaintiffs application for tenure and

(8) Whether Defendants omission, if any, of portions of Plaintiffs service

(9) Whether Plaintiff was qualified for tenure;

(10) Whether the Defendant University breached a contract with Plaintiff.

(11) Whether and to what extent Plaintiff suffered damages.

(12) Whether Plaintiffs claimed damages were caused by Defendants actions.

(13) Whether Plaintiff appropriately mitigated any alleged damages.

c. The contested issues of law are as follows:

(1) Whether Plaintiff engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment.

(2) Whether individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

a. To be offered by the Plaintiff:

P-1 The University of Mississippi Tenure Policies and Procedures

P-20 The Discrimination Charge of Michael Wigginton

The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are

P-18 relevance, hearsay

P-28 authenticity, foundation, relevance

P-70 relevance, hearsay, impermissible opinion testimony

b. To be offered by the Defendant:

D-1 May 8, 2014, Dan Jones Tenure Memo

The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are

Objections, if any, to use of the preceding objects are as follows:

Michael Wigginton, Jr. Will F, L, D Slidell, Louisiana

Daniel W. Jones May F, L Jackson, Mississippi

Morris H. Stocks May F, L University, Mississippi

John Z. Kiss May F, L Greensboro, NC

/s/ Keith L. Flicker_______

/s/ Mike Farrell__________

_/s/ Paul B, Watkins, Jr._______