patricia davis smu lawsuit

Original Complaint and Jury Demand –

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

§

DR. PATRICIA H. DAVIS, §

§ CIV. A. NO. _______________

Plaintiff, §

§ JURY DEMANDED

v. §

§

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, §

§

Defendant. §

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Dr. Patricia H. Davis complains of Southern Methodist University’s 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

University’s best interest. She courageously complained to multiple university administrators—

from her college dean, to SMU’s Title IX coordinator, and eventually to the President’s 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 Commission—Civil Rights

Division. Davis intends to add Texas Labor Code claims once the statutory period passes.

Case 3:13-cv-01419-N Document 1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 21 PageID 1


SMU responded harshly—as Davis feared—and ultimately terminated her employment on or

about September 12, 2012 because of her reports. SMU’s 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. Davis is a female citizen of Richardson, Dallas County, Texas.

3. SMU is a Texas nonprofit corporation that conducted business in Texas at all

times material to Davis’s 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

Davis’s 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 Davis’s 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 Davis’s claims—including her unlawful termination—occurred 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



average of $10,400 less than their male counterparts. None of the seven current college deans is a

woman.

7. SMU’s 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 Davis’s 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 Program’s 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, co-

wrote 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 program’s 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.



through May 31, 2014 (“Agreement”). The Agreement also guaranteed Davis’s annual salary and

benefits and defined the position’s duties. Davis accepted.

10. Administrators and supervisors at SMU were very supportive and complimentary

of Davis’s 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 President’s

Athletic Council in 2001 and chair of the Title IX section of the Athletic Department’s 2009

NCAA Recertification Review. The Recertification Review showed gross inequities between

men’s and women’s sports programs at SMU, and when Davis made her report stressing a need

for more funding for women’s sports—for, among other reasons, the safety and wellbeing of the

student athletes (one of whom had been struck by a car while training because the Women’s

Track team didn’t have a safe cross-country course)—President Turner dismissed it with a laugh,

saying “[They didn’t] 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. SMU’s “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.”



or whose work, academic or otherwise, is supervised by the faculty

member… The professional relationship between faculty and students is

central to the University’s 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 Halperin’s 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 had—in her

words—“hit 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 Halperin’s 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



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 Halperin’s 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. Davis’s office was directly across a narrow hallway from

Halperin’s, so she could hear conversations in his office when the door was open. In or about the



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 Halperin’s 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 EHRP—which was being featured in SMU publications and being especially

“spotlighted” by Dean Tsutsui in meetings, University gatherings, and Dedman College

publicity—as 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 find—to her surprise—that 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 desk’s counter went flying. Both Student E and Halperin were red in the face, and her hair



was in disarray. Both looked very embarrassed, began stammering forced greetings, and picking

up the papers. Unprompted, Student E said, “I’m 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 Davis’s 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 situation’s 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 SMU’s Associate

Provost, Linda Eads, for a previously-scheduled dinner. Davis told Eads what she had seen and

about Halperin’s earlier inappropriate conduct. SMU’s 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



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 SMU’s 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

student—Student E, with whom Davis saw Halperin alone in the office on or about October 11,

2011—to 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 Davis’s fears about Halperin’s 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 Halperin’s efforts to demote

and eventually oust Davis—at 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 had—Davis thought—resolved all potential issues

with it. Then, on or about April 3, 2012, Davis met with Dean Tsutsui for what she understood



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 Davis’s request because “Rick doesn’t

trust you.” The Dean also said that Rick had lately been acting unusually agitated—repeatedly

calling, emailing, and asking for meetings with the Dean—with 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 didn’t “trust her.”

21. After agonizing about it overnight, Davis concluded that Halperin’s 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 Davis’s

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 Tsutsui’s 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 well-

known fairy tale. In revenge against the citizens of Hamelin, he uses his magic flute to lure the

town’s children away never to be seen again. Given Tsustui’s 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.



annual performance review dated April 21). Davis wanted the Dean to know the reason for

Rick’s “mistrust”—namely, 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 Halperin’s

Nazi behaviors. On or about the morning of April 4, 2012, Davis told Dean Tsutsui about

Halperin’s 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



said that he would follow the Program’s policy on keeping his office door open. On information

and belief, Tsutsui again violated the SHCR policy, doing nothing more about Davis’s

complaints.

23. Not long after this meeting a female student (“Student F”)—whose twin sister was

formerly in the EHRP—approached 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 Halperin’s conduct with female students was widely known.

24. In early spring 2012, Davis agreed to Dean Tsutsui’s 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

Tsutsui’s 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 EHRP’s Associate Director

in early May 2012 —trusting the Dean’s 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 college’s 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



“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, Davis’s first day back after a 4th of July vacation, Halperin and Davis again met

with the Dean—at the Dean’s 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

Davis’s 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 Davis’s responsibilities or protect her from this

obvious retaliation. After the meeting, Tsutsui characterized the issue as “communication”

problems.

27. Halperin’s intense hostility and the Dean’s 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 Rick’s fury with [her] (for such strange stuff) except

for the fact that [she] told [Tsutsui] about his harassing behavior with women students and



staff—and his Nazi behaviors.” Davis also advised Dean Tsutsui that Halperin’s 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 SMU’s Title IX Coordinator. Otherwise, Dean Tsutsui gave no

indication that he intended to act on Davis’s complaints or to investigate the issue as the SHCR

required.

28. On or about July 27, 2012, Davis met with Wilson to report Halperin’s

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 University’s policy. Instead, Wilson

turned Davis’s complaints around and blamed her for Halperin’s hostile actions. Shocked, Davis

said that Halperin “is a predator—that 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 “didn’t hear from [Wilson] in a couple of weeks” in

case she had forgotten. Wilson neither asked Davis for any evidence of Halperin’s misconduct

nor for the names of students or staff who might have relevant information. The SHCR policy

required Wilson to submit Davis’s complaint to the Faculty Senate Ethics and Tenure Committee



(“Faculty Senate ETC”) for its consideration and action. On information and belief, Wilson

never referred Davis’s 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 protected—from

sexualized conversations, physical intimacy, meetings behind closed and locked doors,

and requests for dating/intimacy.

2) The Program needs to be regularized—through 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 professionally—needs 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 Davis’s own relationships with men. Wilson

questioned Davis about a supposed personal relationship with an SMU colleague with whom she

was working on a project. Wilson’s focus on Davis—the “messenger”—indicated that Wilson



was more interested digging up “dirt” to try to discredit Davis than in uncovering the truth about

Halperin’s 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, Wilson’s “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 Turner’s response,

Wilson advised that she had concluded a “thorough investigation” of Davis’s complaints.

Ignoring the statements and documents that Davis provided, Wilson claimed that she “found no

evidence” of Halperin’s improper conduct. Wilson claimed that there were “indications … that

[Davis] made statements that were deliberately false and malicious.” Wilson ignored Davis’s

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

Wilson’s 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.)



On information and belief, Wilson never referred Davis’s appeal to anyone—much 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 Halperin’s 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 Dean’s 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.” Davis’s experience and observations say

otherwise. SMU’s actions caused her serious harm—both personal and professional, and both

economic and non-economic. The harm to Davis’s career is severe and lasting. On a personal

level, SMU’s 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 Commission–Civil Rights Division. The EEOC issued a notice of rights letter



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. Davis incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 37.

39. Davis engaged in protected activity by, among other actions, complaining of

sexual harassment and retaliation, both informally and formally, to multiple University

administrators—including a college Dean, an Associate Provost, SMU’s Director of Human

Resources, and its Title IX coordinator—and eventually to the University’s President.

40. SMU’s 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. SMU’s unlawful actions

were deliberate, willful, and malicious.

41. Davis is entitled to be made whole for any loss caused by SMU’s retaliation. She

seeks equitable relief necessary to return her to the position that she would have held absent

SMU’s unlawful retaliation and to protect her and others from retaliation.

42. SMU’s retaliation caused Davis to suffer—and 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 SMU’s retaliation, Davis has suffered—and continues to

suffer—non-pecuniary losses including, among others, humiliation, damage to professional and



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 Davis’s rights.

Accordingly, Davis seeks punitive damages.

45. SMU’s retaliation forced Davis to retain counsel in order to redress the harm done

to her. Consequently, Davis seeks attorney’s fees, expert costs, and other litigation expenses.

B. COUNT TWO: BREACH OF CONTRACT

46. Davis incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45.

47. 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 EHRP’s Associate Director for the two year

period beginning June 1, 2012 and guaranteed her salary and benefits. The agreement also

specified the position’s 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 attorney’s 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. SMU’s 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.



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. A declaration that SMU’s actions violated Title VII and Title IX;

b. Back pay, including but not limited to, lost wages and other employment benefits;

c. Equitable relief necessary to place Davis in the position that she would have held

but for SMU’s discrimination and retaliation; and, if such relief be infeasible,

front pay;

d. 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;

e. Actual damages;

f. Compensatory damages;

g. Punitive damages;

h. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

i. Attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs of suit; and

j. Other legal and equitable relief to which Davis may justly be entitled.



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

[email protected]

James D. Sanford

Texas Bar No. 24051289

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR DR. PATRICIA H.

DAVIS


patricia davis smu lawsuit

Documents