Adams V UNC-Wilmington - Answer To Amended Complaint Without Exhibits

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,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
v.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA-WILMINGTON, et al,
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 Plaintiffs 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.
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
6.

DEFENDANTS
7.
Defendants admit that Rosemary DePaolo is the Chancellor of 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 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
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
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
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
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 Plaintiffs 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
the excerpt of N.C.G.S. 116-1 contained in Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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
Plaintiffs Exhibit 2, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself.
25.
Defendants admit that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Complaint, but note that the Code was amended on two occasions, 1 July
2007 and 29 February 2008, after Plaintiffs filing. As to the contents of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs
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 Plaintiffs Complaint, but note
that the Code was amended on two occasions, 1 July 2007 and 29 February 2008, after Plaintiffs
filing. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 3, the document, to the extent admissible into
evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 26 are denied.
27.
of excerpts from The UNCW Faculty Handbook, but note that the Handbook was amended in
August 2007. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 4, the document, to the extent admissible
into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 27 are denied.
28.
of excerpts from The UNCW Faculty Handbook, but note that the Handbook was amended in
August 2007. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 4, the document, to the extent admissible
29.
of excerpts from The Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina as of
the date of Plaintiffs Complaint, but note that the Code was amended on two occasions, 1 July
2007 and 29 February 2008, after Plaintiffs filing. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 5, the
30.
of the UNCW Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy located on the UNCW Human
Resources website. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 6, the document, to the extent
admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 30
are denied.
B. PLAINTIFFS 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 Plaintiffs 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
10
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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 7 to his
Complaint appears to be Dr. McNamees evaluation of Plaintiff for the Fall 1993 semester. As to
the contents of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 8 to his Complaint appears to be an
unsigned copy of Dr. McNamees evaluation of Plaintiff for the 1994 Spring, Summer, and Fall
semesters. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 8, the document, to the extent authentic and
are denied.
37.
unsigned copy of Dr. McNamees evaluation of Plaintiff for the 1995 Spring, Summer, and Fall
semesters. As to the contents of Plaintiffs 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
11
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 Whos 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 10 to his Complaint appears to be a letter
from Diane Levy to Plaintiff dated 20 June 1996. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 10, the
43.
Defendants admit that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 11, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks
12

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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 12 to this Complaint appears to be a handwritten letter from the
Greek Week Chair to Plaintiff. As to the contents of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 13 to this Complaint
appears to be the Promotion and Tenure Recommendation from Dean Jo Ann Seiple on
Plaintiffs behalf. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 13, the document, to the extent
are denied.
46.
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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 15 to the Complaint appears to be a copy
of the certificate for this award. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 15, the document, to the
13
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.
50.
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 Plaintiffs Exhibit
17 to his Complaint appears to be a copy of Plaintiffs 17 September 2001 response to an e-mail
written by Ms. Fuller on 15 September 2001. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 17, the
14

52.
of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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. Turrisis 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 Chancellors Office and that Plaintiffs Exhibit 18 to his Complaint appears to be a copy of
Ms. Fullers complaint. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 18, the document, to the extent
are denied.
15
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.
58.
59.
of Plaintiffs 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. Scotts e-mail and determined that it was not an imminent threat. Except as
61.
of former UNCW Provost John Cavanaughs 25 September 2001 e-mail response to Plaintiffs
23 September 2001 e-mail. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 20, the document, to the
16

62.
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 Plaintiffs
Exhibit 21, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as
63.
of Ms. Rosa Fullers 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 22, the
64.
of former UNCW University Counsel Harold M. White Jr.s 28 September 2001 e-mail to
Plaintiff regarding Ms. Fullers complaint. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 23, the
65.
of Ms. Rosa Fullers 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 24, the
17
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 Plaintiffs 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 Fullers 1 October 2001 letter; Ms. Rosa Fullers 10 October 2001 response to Mr.
Whites 3 October 2001 letter; and Mr. Whites 11 October 2001 response to Ms. Fullers 10
October 2001 letter. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 25, the documents, to the extent
admissible into evidence, speak for themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph
67 are denied.
68.
of Ms. Rosa Fullers 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
69.
70.
18
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 Plaintiffs office; and, therefore, Defendants cannot
admit or deny these allegations.
71.
as to the contents of any conversation that occurred during a visit to Plaintiffs office; and,
72.
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.
73.
as to the contents of any conversation that occurred between Mr. White and Ms. Scott; and,
74.
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.
19
75.
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.
76.
of former UNCW University Counsel Harold M. White Jr.s 25 October 2001 response to Ms.
Rosa Fullers 15 October 2001 letter requesting a final decision on her complaint to the
University. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 27, the document, to the extent admissible
77.
of Ms. Rosa Fullers undated letter or complaint to several UNCW officials with unidentified
handwritten notations in the typewritten text. As to the contents of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs
20
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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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. Cavanaughs 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. Snowdens complaint be disclosed to him; and, therefore, Defendants cannot admit or
deny these allegations. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 31, the document, to the extent admissible into
21
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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 32,
the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the
83.
84.
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.
85.
86.
22
87.
Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 36 to his Complaint purports to be a list
of Plaintiffs Published and Accepted for Publication Peer Reviewed Publications and that
Plaintiffs Exhibit 37 to his Complaint purports to be a list of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 38 to his Complaint purports to be a list
of Plaintiffs Community Service Activities. As to the contents of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs
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
91.
23
whether Plaintiff complied with Dr. Willis request, as to whether Ms. Dugan downloaded or
read Plaintiffs columns, and as to if or how she responded to these columns; and, therefore,
cannot admit or deny these allegations.
92.
why Plaintiff wrote a column, as to whether Ms. Dugan downloaded or read Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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.
95.
unsigned copy of Dr. Levys evaluation of Plaintiff for the 2004 Spring and Fall Semesters. As
24
to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 40, the document, to the extent authentic and admissible into
96.
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
Womens 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
25
cleared him from Dr. Snowdens allegations. Defendants admit that Dr. Cook then approached
Dr. William Fleming about Plaintiffs concerns, and that Dr. Fleming agreed to look into the
situation. Defendants further admit that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 41, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence,
speaks for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 100 are denied.
101.
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 Plaintiffs
Exhibit 42, the document, to the extent admissible into evidence, speaks for itself. Except as
102.
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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 43, the
103.
of Dr. Kimberly Cooks evaluation of Plaintiff for January through December 2005. As to the
104.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff first applied for promotion to full professor in
26
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 members 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 45 to his Complaint appears to be a copy of Plaintiffs
Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion, and/or Tenure application. As to the contents
of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 46, the documents, to the extent admissible into evidence, speak for
27
themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 106 are denied.

107.
of an e-mail sent by Plaintiff to Dr. Kimberly Cook on 20 September 2006. As to the contents of
108.
of a 21 September 2006 memorandum from Dr. Kimberly Cook to Plaintiff regarding his
promotion application. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 48, the document, to the extent
are denied.
109.
of a 27 September 2006 memorandum from Plaintiff to Dr. Kimberly Cook on 20 September

2006. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 49, the document, to the extent authentic and
are denied.
110.
of a 29 September 2006 memorandum from Dr. Kimberly Cook to Plaintiff regarding the denial
of his promotion application. As to the contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 50, the document, to the
111.
Defendants admit that Dr. Randy LaGrange, the most senior member of the
28
Criminal Justice faculty at that time, served on the tenure committee. Defendants further admit
that Dr. LaGrange believed that the committees decision was very difficult, but he agreed with
the ultimate decision. Defendants also admit that when Plaintiff recounted Dr. Cooks 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 Plaintiffs teaching did
not override Plaintiffs weakness in the two other areas. Except as admitted, the allegations in
112.
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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Exhibit 52, the documents, to the extent admissible into evidence, speak
for themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 114 are denied.
29
115.
Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 53 to his Complaint appears to contain a
cover letter from Plaintiffs counsel to the EEOC and charge related documents. As to the
contents of Plaintiffs Exhibit 53, the documents, to the extent admissible into evidence, speak
for themselves. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 115 are denied.
116.
Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC to Plaintiff, dated 12 March 2007. As to the contents of
117.
118.

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.
120.
121.
122.
123.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech (Viewpoint

Discrimination) (42 U.S.C. 1983)
30
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Dr. Adams Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Law) (42
U.S.C. 1983)
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Title VIIs Protection Against Religious Discrimination (42 U.S.C. 2000e)
134.
31
135.
136.
137.
138.

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
Plaintiffs 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
Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims contained in the Complaint are barred to the extent
32
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: jscherer@ncdoj.gov
L.R 83.1 Counsel
33
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,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA-WILMINGTON, et
al.,
Defendants
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. 12545
Patrick Henry Justice Center
444 South Main Street
Laurinburg, North Carolina 28352
(910) 2669017
(910) 2669006facsimile
lawofliberty@bellsouth.net
LR 83.1 Counsel
DAVID A. FRENCH
Tennessee Bar No. 16692
Kentucky Bar No. 86986
Alliance Defense Fund
7141 Old Zion Road
Columbia, Tennessee 38401
(931) 4900591
34
dfrench@telladf.org
BENJAMIN W. BULL (of counsel)
Arizona Bar No. 009940
TRAVIS C. BARHAM
Arizona Bar No. 024867
15333 N. Pima Rd., Suite 165
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
(480) 4440020
bbull@telladf.org
DAVID J. HACKER
Illinois Bar No. 6283022
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, California 95630
(916) 9322850
dhacker@telladf.org
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: jscherer@ncdoj.gov
35

Adams V UNC-Wilmington - Answer To Amended Complaint Without Exhibits

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Adams V UNC-Wilmington - Answer To Amended Complaint Without Exhibits

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

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

Defendants admit that the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW

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

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

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

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

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

The allegations in paragraph 5 are admitted.

The allegations in paragraph 6 are admitted.

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

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 35

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

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

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 35

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

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

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 35

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

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

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 5 of 35

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

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

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

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

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 6 of 35

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

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

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

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

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

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 3 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

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

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 8 of 35

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 4 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 4 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 5 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 6 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 9 of 35

B. PLAINTIFFS CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM

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

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 10 of 35

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 8 to his Complaint appears to be an

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 9 to his Complaint appears to be an

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 11 of 35

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

as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 40 are denied.

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

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 10 to his Complaint appears to be a letter

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 11 to his Complaint appears to be a

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 12 of 35

for itself. Except as admitted, the allegations in paragraph 43 are denied.

Defendants admit that Plaintiff was promoted to Associate Professor of

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 120 Filed 05/14/08 Page 13 of 35

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

to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 48.

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 16 to his Complaint appears to be a copy

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

allegations in paragraph 51 are denied.

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Exhibit 17 to his Complaint appears to be a copy