1 

 NO. 13-15-00313-CV 

 ________________________________________________ 

 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

 CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 

 _________________________________________________ 

 NEAL VANZANTE 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

 V. 

 TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY--KINGSVILLE 

 

 Defendant-Appellee 

 ____________________________________________________ 

 On Appeal From the 105th District Court 

 Kleberg County 

 Trial Court Cause No. 12-238-D 

 ____________________________________________________ 

APPELLANT NEAL VANZANTE'S REPLY BRIEF 

 _____________________________________________________ 

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 _/s/ Chris McJunkin________ 

Chris McJunkin 

State Bar No. 13686525 

2842 Lawnview 

Corpus Christi, Tx. 78404 

Tel: (361) 882-5747 

Fax: (361) 882-8926 

cmcjunkin@stx.rr.com

ACCEPTED

13-15-00313-CV

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

12/23/2015 5:08:07 PM

Dorian E. Ramirez

CLERK

 FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 12/28/2015 8:00:00 AM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk
2 

 IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

 Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a), Appellant submits the following list of 

names and last known addresses of all parties and their counsel at trial and on 

appeal: 

Parties to the Trial Court Judgment:

Appellant/Plaintiff: Neal Vanzante 

Appellee/Defendant Texas A&M University- Kingsville 

Counsel:

For Appellant: Chris McJunkin, Appellate Counsel 

 2842 Lawnview 

 Corpus Christi, Tx. 78404 

 Fax: 361-882-8926 

 cmcjunkin@stx.rr.com 

For Appellee: Anne Mackin, Assistant Attorney General 

 Office of Attorney General - Litigation 

 P.O.Box 12548, Capitol Station 

 Austin, Tx. 78711-2548 

 Fax: (512) 320-0667 

 Anne.Mackin@texasattoneygeneral.gov 

 
3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................... 2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................ 3 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................ 5 

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................... 7 

Appellant was Qualified for Hire and was Not Prohibited From 

Applying by the 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with 

TAMU Corpus Christi .................................................................................. 8 

2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with 

TAMU Corpus Christi 

Was Not a Basis Used by Defendant in Not Hiring Appellant: ..................... 8 

 Appellant was not prohibited from applying for the Chair opening by the 

 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with TAMU Corpus Christi .......... 10 

Appellant's resignation............................................................................................. 13 

Appellant's Applications .......................................................................................... 15 

Qualification 

 Leadership, Administration, etc. ....................................................... 15 

Appellant Met ALL Appellee's Qualifications for Full Professor.................. 16 

Appellant Met Appellee's Alleged General Qualification 

 Leadership, Administration, etc. ..... ................................................ 18 

Dr.Sullivan did not Meet Appellee's Alleged General Qualification 

 Leadership, Administration, etc. ..... ................................................ 20 

General Qualification: Appellee's supporting evidence not 

 part of the decision-making process........................................................ 21 

Appellee's Alleged General Qualification 

 Professional, Facilitator, etc. c. ........................................................ 22 
4 

Dr.Sullivan did not Meet Appellee's Alleged General Qualification 

 Professional, Facilitator, etc etc. ........................................... 22 

General Qualification: Appellee's supporting evidence not 

 part of the decision-making process..................................................... 22

Appellant Met Appellee's Alleged General Qualification 

 Professional, Facilitator, etc . ................................................... ..... 20, 23 

Appellant was AACSB AQ...................................................................... 25 

AACSB does not require current teaching to maintain AACSB AQ status.. 25 

Appellant Met and Maintained AACSB AQ during 18 months................... 28 

Appellant Met AACSB currency requirement.................... ........................ 28 

Appellant Met Position's Preferred Qualifications...................... ................. 30 

Krueger draft document............................................................................... 31 

2006 Release and Settlement was not basis for decision............................ 34 

Dr.Sullivan was not qualified 

 Appellee determined Sullivan not Qualified..........................................36 

 Sullivan was not qualified for Full Professor....................................... 36 

Dean Thomas Dock was decision-maker...................................................... 38 

January 7, 2013, Start date............................................................................. 42 

Appellee conducted investigation into Dean Dock's hiring, etc...................... 43 

PRAYER .................................................................................... 44 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................... . 45 

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................ 46 
5 

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

Gee v Principi, 289 F.3d 342, 346, (5th Cir. 2002) 

Staub v Proctor Hosp., 131 SW.Ct. 1186, 1193 (2011) 

STATUTES: 

Tex.Lab.Code Sec. 125(a). 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(c) ........................................ 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure TRAP 9.4(i)(2)(C), ......................... 

 
6 

 NO. 13-15-00313-CV 

 ________________________________________________ 

 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

 CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 

 _________________________________________________ 

 NEAL VANZANTE 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

 V. 

 TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY--KINGSVILLE 

 

 Defendant-Appellee 

 ____________________________________________________ 

 On Appeal From the 105th District Court 

 Kleberg County 

 Trial Court Cause No. 12-238-D 

 ____________________________________________________ 

 FIRST AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT NEAL VANZANTE 

 _____________________________________________________ 

 

TO THE HONORABLE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS: 

 COMES NOW, Appellant, Neal Vanzante, and respectfully submits this, Appellant’s 

Reply, pursuant to Rule 38.6(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and would 

show the Court the following: 
7 

 ============================== 

 Appellee's Fact Presentation 

 Appellee Brief p.4: Defendant cites Dr.Richard Aukerman deposition 

testimony to allege that Dr. Sullivan was the only candidate invited by the search 

committee. citing p.26, lines 15-20. 

 Aukerman's testimony cited by Appellee evidences that Dean Dock should 

have re-advertised the Chair opening after it was determined Dr.Sullivan was not 

qualified: 

 15.Hypothetically, because obviously I wasn't in a

 16 position to do that, I, I probably would have simply - I 

 17 probably would have at that point, since that was the 

 18 only candidate that the search committee said anything 

 19 about inviting at all, I probably would have recommended

 2 0 that we readvertise the position. Probably. I mean I 

 Dr.Aukerman investigation had determined that the search committee did not 

invite Dr.Sullivan to campus. August 15, 2012: Dr.Aukerman notified Martin 

Brittain of a list of Dean Dock's misconduct including that "she (Dr.Sullivan) was 

not recommended for an interview by the search committee". (CR 1: 872, sec.10 

last sentence) 

 ================================ 
8 

 Appellee Brief sec. A. i. (p.8-9) 

Appellant VanZante Was Qualified for Hire and was NOT Prohibited From 

Applying for the Chair Position by the 2006 Release and Settlement 

Agreement with TAMU-CC. 

(response to Appellee Brief Sec. A, p.8 -13) 

 Appellant incorporates herein as if set forth verbatim Appellant's detailed 

argument on this issue set out in Appellant's First Amended Brief at p.20 to p.32. 

 Appellee asserts that Vanzante, Appellant, was not qualified for the position 

because Appellant was barred from applying for the Chair position because of the 

2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with TAMU-CC.

 Not Relevant 

 Appellant has filed a discriminatory failure to hire claim regarding Defendant 

hiring a younger applicant over Appellant for a department Chair opening in 

August of 2012. Defendant's argument is not relevant to Defendant's MSJ to 

dismiss Appellant's: Appellant's 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with 

Texas A&M Corpus Christi was not the or a basis that Defendant did not hire 

Appellant for the Chair position; and cannot negate the discriminatory act of which 

Appellant complains: Defendant's wrongful act of hiring the younger applicant 

over the Appellant. 

 Basis of Hiring Decision

(also see Appellant's First Amended Brief: p.12-17)

 August 6, 2012: Dean Dock notified the faculty that he had hired Carol 

Sullivan for the Chair opening and entered into a contract with Carol Sullivan 
9 

who agreed to all terms- Associate Dean Aukerman and Provost Gandy are copied. 

(CR1: 842-844) 

 -- (Sullivan's handwritten acceptance on last page, (CR 1: 844) 

"I accept this proposal without any revisions. Thank you for the 

opportunities and I look forward to contributing to the excellence at Texas A&MKingsville." 

 "Respectfully, 

 Carol Sullivan (signature) 

 August 23, 2012: Appellee / Defendant identified the reason Dr.Sullivan was 

hired and the reason Appellant was not hired. (CR 1: 850) 

Dr.Vanzante does not meet the two salient position requirements: (1) professorial 

experiences that meet the current college expectations of a Full Professor and (2) 

AACSB Academically Qualified (AQ) status. (CR 1:850) 

 Dr.Krueger testified that Dean Dock provided the reason Appellant was not 

hired. (CR 1: 698, p.28, lines 10-15; CR 1: 701, p.39, line 23 to p.40, line 16). 

 August 31, 2012: Defendant identified on its official Applicant Log 

that Carol Sullivan was the candidate 'hired'. (CR1:885: Sullivan 'hired'; 

Vanzante 'not hired') 

 September 13,2012: Defendant removed Dock as the Dean and Associate

Dean Aukerman became Interim Dean. (CR 1:876) (CR 1: 724, p.29, lines 18-24). 

 Dr.Aukerman testified that, before Dr.Aukerman became Interim Dean, 

Sullivan had accepted Dean Dock's offer; Dean Dock had informed Provost Gandy 

and the Defendant had closed the position. (CR 1: 739: p.86/1-10) 
10 

 Provost Gandy instructed Interim Dean Aukerman that Sullivan was the 

person hired for the Chair opening and go with it. (CR 1: 725, p.30, lines 3-9) (CR 

1: 724, p.28, line 25 to p.29, line 11). 

 Both Dr.Aukerman / Provost Gandy later signed off on Dean Dock's hiring Dr. 

Sullivan for the Chair position. (CR 1: 739: p.86/1-21) 

 Two years later, on September 17, 2014: Dr.Dock testified that he, Dr.Dock, 

was the decision-maker and stated: “ I hired Carol (Sullivan) as Chair of the 

Department of Accounting, and at the professorial rank of full professor". (CR1: 

665, p.6, lines 15-19) (CR1: 664 for date of deposition). 

 ========================= 

The 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with TAMU-CC provided that 

Appellant could for the Chair position at issue in this suit. 

(Appellant incorporates his detailed argument on this issue at 

Appellant's First Amended Brief at p.20 to p.32) 

In addition: 

 February 24, 2012: Appellant applied for a posted opening for the Chair of 

the Department of Accounting and Finance. (CR 1:799). Defendant' job posting 

identified the opening as being 'the holder of a named Chair'. (CR 1:781: job 

summary). 
11 

 Dean Dock testified that "a named Chair is an endowed Chair", and the 

position opening was for an endowed Chair. (CR 1: 666 at p.9, lines 7-8; p.29, line 

22 to p.30, line 3). 

 ===================================== 

 The 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with TAMU-CC

Paragraph 3, Last Sentence

 

 At the time of the 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement and while 

employed with Appellee, Appellant knew that TAMU Kingsville would be 

working to have an Endowed Chair position in the Department. (CR 1:658: 

sec.30). The Parties added the last sentence to Section 3 specifically allowing 

Appellant an unqualified right to apply for an endowed chair opening that might 

open in the futre and not subject to any restriction to be currently employed. (CR 1: 

658: sec.30) 

 The parties agreed and ended Section 3 with a stand-alone provision: 

 "The Parties further agree that this paragraph (Paragraph 3) shall not apply

to any applications Appellant may make to Texas A&M University--Kingsville, 

for employment in positions such as an endowed chair position that may become 

available after the execution of this agreement." (CR 1: p.776, last sentence 

sec. 3; same at CR 1: p.773, sec. 3--last sentence). 

 IF Defendant's changes, as set out in its Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Appellee's Brief, that Appellant had any type of restrictions or had to be currently 

employed at TAMU Kingsville to apply for an endowed chair opening at TAMU 

Kingsville were the terms in the 2006 Settlement and Release Agreement with 
12 

TAMU Corpus Christi, THEN these terms would have been added to the wording 

of the 2006 Settlement and Release with TAMU Corpus Christi. (CR 1:660, 

sec.36; p. 659, sec. 35) 

 Appellant could have then accepted or rejected the limitation and wording; of 

which Appellant would have rejected. (CR 1: 655 sec.15; p.654, sec.10) 

 Just the opposite: such a restriction and meaning, as now asserted by TAMU 

Kingsville, was not included and the TAMU Corpus Christi Settlement. (CR 1: 

778, sec. 3, last sentence) There is no wording in the 2006 Release and 

Settlement Agreement with Texas A&M Corpus Christi that Appellant's right to 

apply for an endowed Chair opening was limited to being currently employed; the 

parties' only limitation was that the opening "become available after the execution 

of this agreement". (CR 1: 773, 776--executed in Sept 2006) 

 Extrinsic Evidence

 Appellant must produce and rely upon extrinsic evidence, the Assistant 

Attorney General who crafted the 2006 RSA (Mr.Daniel Perkins), to assert this 

additional term to the 2006 RSA. If allowed, this would create a fact issue. 

Appellee Records Evidence Appellant Not Barred from Applying for advertised 

positions.

 Set out in Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p. 29. 

===================================================== 
13 

Appellee Brief sec. A. ii. (p.9-10)

Appellee asserts: TAMU-K's AACSB accreditation did not require VanZante to 

 resign. 

 

 Appellee misstates Appellant's argument. 

 The 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with Texas A&M Corpus Christi 

actual wording is: 

"The Parties further agree that, for the purposes of this Agreement, any actions or 

applications required of Plaintiff by Texas A&M University--Kingsville to maintain 

his current position of Professor of Accounting, including, but not limited to 

applications for renewal of tenure and applications for summer teaching at Texas 

A&M University--Kingsville, shall be exempt from the restrictions set forth in 

Paragraph 3." 

 Appellant's First Amended Brief on pages 26-28 and 30-32 sets out how this 

provision came to be drafted. 

 It is not disputed that Appellee TAMU Kingsville was going to apply for 

AACSB accreditation at some time after 2006, at which time Appellee would 

require faculty to become AACSB AQ certified. The 2012 Chair job description's 

required minimum qualifications included that the candidate must (2) be AACSB 

Academically Qualified (AQ) and preferred qualification was "AACSB 

accreditation". (CR 1:782). 

 In 2007, the opportunity arose that Appellant could work at University of 

Texas Pan American (UTPA) which was an AACSB accredited doctoral granting 
14 

institution and UTPA was going through its AACSB re-accreditation process. (CR 

1:p.654, sec.12). 

 Prior to leaving Defendant and submitting his resignation to work at the Univ. 

of Texas Pan American: (Appellant 1st Amended Brief p.27-28) 

 Appellee / Dean Stanford instructed Appellant that Appellant resigning and 

returning to work with Appellee at a later date would be acceptable to Appellee (to 

Dean Standford and Appellee's Provost Clayton, to TAMU System and acceptable 

under the 2006 TAMU Corpus Christi Settlement and Release Agreement. (CR 1: 

p.655, secs.14, 15)(CR 1: p.654, sec.14). 

Party Admissions 

**The District Court found Dean Stanford's and Provost Clayton's statements were not hearsay 

and admissible under TRE 801(e)(2) as party admissions, TRE 803(3) then existing state of mind 

of motive, intent, plan regarding Appellant resigning and re-applying at a later date; and as nonhearsay to show the effect of the statement on the Appellant, not for the truth of the statement. 

(CR 1: 1007-1010) 

 Appellant would not have left his position at TAMUK and would have 

rejected the offer to join the University of Texas Pan American if Appellee / 

Defendant had not agreed that Appellant could resign in 2007 and return at a later 

date to work for Defendant under the 2006 Settlement and Release with TAMU 

Corpus Christi. (CR 1:p.655, sec.15). "Dean Stanford told me (Appellant) that this 

was acceptable to the Provost and the System. (CR 1:p.655, sec.15; 1007-08, 

1010) 
15 

 ================================================ 

Appellee Brief sec. A. iii. (p.10-13)

 Appellee asserts: VanZante's resignation did not create a right to future 

 employment opportunities 

 Appellant sets out a detailed response to this issue in Appellant's First 

Amended Brief at pages 20 to 32 regarding leaving Appellee and returning; and 

application for endowed Chair posting. 

=================================== 

APPELLEE'S ALLEGED REQUIRED GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS 

Appellee's Brief Sec. B pages 14-16 asserts Appellant did not meet the Chair 

position's alleged general qualifications. 

 Appellee asserts a new alleged general qualification which was not actual 

required qualifications and not part of the actual hiring decision process. 

 Appellant addressed this issue in detail at Appellant’s First Amended Brief 

pages 48-53 of which Appellant incorporates herein as if set forth verbatim. 

 Defendant's Written Job Posting identified the required 'Minimum Qualifications' 

were: (CR 1: 782) Candidate must be professionally qualified to: 

 (1) hold the rank of Full Professor and 

 (2) be AACSB Academically Qualified (AQ). 

1. Appellee Defendant acknowledged to the EEOC that Appellant met the 

positions requirements and was a qualified applicant. (Appellant 1st Amended 

Brief p.43-44) 
16 

2. Appellee identified Appellant as a qualified candidate for hiring on its 

Applicant Logs created after the hiring decision. (Appellant 1st Amended Brief 

p.67-68) 

 

================================== 

Defendant Acknowldged to the EEOC Investigator

that Appellant met all required Qualifications for the Chair Position

 April 5, 2013, responding to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

investigation, Defendant acknowledged to the EEOC that Appellant did meet the 

Chair position's required qualifications. (CR 1: bottom of CR 865 to top of CR 

866) 

 "The application system determined three applicants did not meet minimum 

qualifications, leaving five candidates who did meet minimum qualifications. These 

were: 

 Dr.Neal Vanzante" (Appellant) 

 plus 4 others 

 -------------------------- 

 Appellee identified Appellant as a qualified candidate for hiring 

on its Applicant Logs created after the hiring decision. 

(Appellant 1st Amended Brief p.67-68) 

 Appellee’s Hiring Authority identified any applicant whose application 

established that the applicant did meet the postion's qualifications in order to be 

processed as acceptable applicant and identified Appellant as a candidate meeting 

the position qualifications. (CR 1: 883-884, 885-886) 
17 

 (1) August 31, 2012 (CR 1: 885-886) and September 18, 2012, Applicant 

Logs identified Appellant as one of four applicants identified meeting required 

qualifications but 'not hired'. (CR 1: 883-884). 

 Applicants meeting required qualifications: (in order as listed) 

 Haque, Mohammed Not Hired 

 Vanzante, Neal (Appellant) Not Hired 

 Rabbani, Mohammad Not Hired 

 Ghosh, Dillip Not Hired 

 Sullivan, Carol Hired 

 

 Applicants not meeting required qualifications: (in order as listed) 

 Francis, Conrad Did Not Meet Min Quals 

 Hopson, James Did Not Meet Min Quals 

 

 ========================================== 

Appellee's Brief Sec. B: p.14-16 

General Qualifications: Appellant provides and incorporates his detailed 

 response on this issue set out at 

 Appellant's First Amended Brief pgs. 48-53. 

 

1. Appellee's alleged general qualifications of Leadership, Administration, and 

Interpersonal and professional communication were not requirements for the 

selection and not used in the decision process. (Appellant 1st Amended Brief p. 49) 

2. These General Qualifications were not applied to Dr.Sullivan, the younger 

applicant selected; and Appellee determined Dr.Sullivan did not possess these 

general qualifications. (Appellant 1st Amended Brief p. 53-54) 

3. Appellant met these General Qualifications (Appellant 1st Amended Brief p.49-

53) 
18 

4. Appellee's evidence to support its argument on this basis was not part of the 

selection or decision-making process. (Appellant 1st Amended Brief p.55). 

 Appelle has asserted that the following 'general qualifications' were the basis of 

the hiring process: 

 1. Leadership 

 2. Administration 

 3. Interpersonal and professional communication 

 No one has testified that these factors were used or applied in the actual 

decision-making process. 

 ================================= 

Appellant provided evidence that Appellant met

the these alleged general requirements and all requirements for Full Professor

Appellant addressed this issue in detail at Appellant’s First Amended Brief pages 

49-52 of which Appellant incorporates herein as if set forth verbatim. 

 Appellee Defendant had qualified and classified Appellant as meeting all 

Appellee's requirements for Full Professor, employing Appellant as a Full 

Professor for 18 years. (CR 651, sec. 2; CR 799, para 2). 

 Associate Dean Aukerman had worked in the College of Business with 

Appellant from about 2002, to 2007 (CR 1: 720, p.10,line 19, to p.13, line 5). 

Dr. Aukerman testified Appellant possessed skills of 'Leadership, Administration, 

Interpersonal and professional communications' : (CR 1: 719, p. 8, line 13 to p.9, 

line 12) 
19 

 Q: Okay. Do you know Dr. VanZante? 

 A: Yes. 

 Q And how did you come about -- 

A Well, initially I met him because we both 

 worked in the College of Business Administration. He had been here a few 

 years when I was hired. And that would have been in 2002. 

Q Have you ever written any letters of reference for Dr. VanZante? 

A Yes, I have. 

Q And have you ever nominated Dr. VanZante for like something called a 

 Regents Professorship? 

A Yes. 

Q What is that? 

A That's an award that the A&M system gives to faculty members who have 

 performed above and beyond the call of duty, I guess you could say, in, over a 

 number of years at the university. 

 Q And what about any nominations for outstanding faculty here at TAMU- 

 Kingsville? Have you ever -- 

 A Well, I remember I nominated him for an Outstanding Educator award for the 

 State Accounting Association. I honestly don't remember if I've done that 

 for an on-campus teaching award or not. I don't recall. But I know I did for 

 the State Accounting Society. 

 ====================== 

 Appellant's application and resume provided evidenced Appellant possessed 

skills of Leadership, Administration, Interpersonal and professional 

communication. (Appellant First Amended Brief: p.51-53) This included above 

Exceptional Annual Evaluations (CR 1: 660, sec. 38) (CR 1: 817); performance 

and achievement awards (CR 1: 816); member of twelve (12) Defendant College 
20 

of Business Committees (CR 1:815); high student evaluations (CR 1: 817 mid 

page); service on boards of directors of organizations in Appellant's Field of 

Accounting (CR 1: 814, top). 

Defendant did not apply these 'general qualifications' 

to the Younger Person Hired: Carol Sullivan, 

------ 

Defendant's Own Records Establish Carol Sullivan did not possess these 'general 

qualifications' of Leadership, Interpersonal and Professional Communications

Appellant addressed this issue in detail at Appellant’s First Amended Brief pages 

53-54 of which Appellant incorporates herein as if set forth verbatim. 

 

 The Chair Search Committee members evaluated and determined Dr. Sullivan 

did not meet qualifications, therefore did not possess this newly alleged general 

qualification of 'Leadership, Administration, Interpersonal and professional 

communications' The Chair Search Committee members made the following 

written factual findings: 

(1) Dr. Sullivan did not meet the position's qualifications and not acceptable 

candidate finding: (CR 1: 838)( CR 1: 837) (CR 1: 836) 

(a) "Odd personality (which isn't necessarily a weakness but seem too 

much like the person who just left the position we are trying to 

fill...)" 

(b) "Don't think that she would be able to work well with our students." 

 (c) did not exhibit a positive feel to others 
21 

 Associate Dean Aukerman, the Chair of the Search Committee, determined 

Sullivan not qualified candidate: 

 1. notified the Hiring Manager that the faculty had determined Sullivan did 

not possess required qualifications (CR 1: 840) and that Dean Dock's hiring of 

Carol Sullivan was an "Inappropriate, unethical, and/or illegal action". (CR 1: 

871, 872 sec.10) 

2. notified Provost Gandy that Dr.Sullivan did not meet the position's 

qualifications and not qualified to be hired.(CR 1:846) 

 ================================== 

Defendant’s Supporting Evidence was Not Used or Relied upon by Decisionmakers in Not Hiring Appellant: 

Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.55 

 Appellee basis the new 'general qualifications' argument on selected employee 

file documents dated 1997 to 2002 (Defendant MSJ Exhibits 10, 11, 12, 14, 15) 

which were NOT part of the decision-making process.

(a) Defendant MSJ Exhibit 15 (CR 1: 477): 1997 Memo 

(b)Defendant MSJ Exhibit 12 (CR 1: 375-376): 2002 Memo 

(c) Defendant MSJ Exhibit 10 (CR 1: 366-371): 2001 Evaluation which 

Appellant filed appeal 

(d)Defendant MSJ Exhibit 11 (CR 1: 373): 2002 Letter involving Appellant's 

grievance 

(e) Defendant MSJ Exhibit 14 (CR 1: 475): 2002 Memo 

 

 

 The basis for hiring Sullivan and not hiring Appellant was based solely on a 

review of their applications. (CR 1: 697, p.24, lines 15-22) Neither Appellant's 

application nor any other applications contained employee files that defendant 
22 

now uses to assert this new reason. (CR 1: 797-819) CR 1: 797-819 Appellant 

applic; CR 1: 821-832--Sullivan applic)(CR 1: 477, 366-71. 475, 373) 

======================================= 

 Appellee Brief Sec. C.i. p.16-18 

Appellee asserts: VanZante was not qualified to hold the 

rank of Full Professor because VanZante did not show he 

was a professional, facilitator, and a trustee 

 This is a newly created basis. 

Defendant did not apply these same qualifications 

to the Younger Person Hired: Carol Sullivan, 

and 

Sullivan did not have these qualifications 

------ 

Defendant's Own Records Establish Carol Sullivan did not possess these same 

general qualifications

(Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.53-54) 

 Appellant's Search Committee and Assist.Dean Aukerman findings Sullivan did 

not meet qualifications. 

 Appellee's argument based on documents not used in hiring process

 Appellee relies upon documents which were not part of, not used in and not 

relied upon in actual the decision-making process. (Appellant's 1st Amended Brief 
23 

p. 58). Appellee bases this assertion on CR 1:370-71, CR 1:475, CR 1: 477 

(Appellee Brief at p.17) 

 CR 1: 370-71: part of 2001 Evaluation act CR 1: 366-371 

 CR 1: 370: Dean wrote: "Congratulations on a very good annual 

 evaluation" 

 CR 1: 475: 2002 Memo 

 Dean wrote: "'Congratulations on another fine annual 

 evaluation. Your teaching evaluations, professional growth 

 and development, research, and service were all excellent'. 

 CR 1: 477: 1997 Letter 

Appellant met ALL Appellee Defendant's requirements and qualifications to hold 

the position of Full Professor

 Defendant qualified and employed Appellant in the rank of Full Professor 

for 18 years: 1989 to 2007. (CR 1: 799-800 -applic / resume; CR 1: 650-651, sec. 

7; CR 1: 653, sec. 10). 

 Appellant was Professionally Qualified to hold the rank of Full Professor 

 Appellant's policy on appointments to a Full Professor are set out in 

Defendant's Faculty Handbook, Sec. B.4.1.6(b). (CR 1: 651, sec. 3; CR 1: 911) 

Defendant's Faculty Handbook required the individual to have held the rank of 

Associate Professor (or higher) for at least five years prior to being eligible for 

appointment to Full Professor. (Ex. 1: p.2, sec. 3; Ex.36-3 ---tamu 0196) 

 

 Dr.Richard Aukerman, 
24 

 Search Committee Chair and Associate Dean of the Department 

(Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.36-38) 

 Dr.Aukerman was employed by Appellee in administrative positions from 

2002 to 2013. (Ex. 4: p.10, line 19 to p.13, line 5) and handled ”lots" of faculty 

hirings either as being "on search committees or chair of a search committee, or 

doing the hiring as an Interim Dean" and was involved in the hiring of "more than 

half of the faculty that are currently in the college", (CR 1: 722, p.19, line 25 to p. 

20, line 19), and worked with Appellant for six (6) years: 2002 to 2007. (auk: p.8, 

lines13-19; p resume, p. ) (CR 1: 782 mid page). 

 Aukerman testified Appellant was qualified to be hired as a "Full 

Professor". (see CR 1: 738, p.82, lines 5-21)(Appellant's application at CR 1: 797-

819; teaching employment history at CR 1: 800). 

 Aukerman establishes that Appellant’s break in classroom teaching time and 

not being currently teaching at time of applying was not relevant to and does not 

prevent Appellant from being qualified to be hired as a Full Professor. (CR 1: 738, 

p.82, lines 5-21)(Appellant's application at CR 1: 797-819; teaching employment 

history at CR 1: 800). 

 ============================== 

 Appellee Brief Sec. C. ii. p.18-20 

Appellee asserts: Appellant VanZante was not AACSB Academically 

Qualified because Appellant had not taught for 18 months prior to applying. 
25 

Appellant Vanzante's First Amended Brief addresses this issue in detail at p.60 to 

p. 66, 

Appellee's assertion is false: A faculty member maintains his AASCB AQ status 

by undertaking scholarly activities in his filed during the five year period not by 

teaching.

 

 

 APPELLANT WAS AACSB ACADEMICALLY QUALIFIED 

 Appellant was only applicant who Appellant had actual knowledge was AACSB 

AQ qualified at the time of applying. (CR 1: 848) 

 

 ii. Appellant was AACSB Academically Qualified 

 Defendant's MSJ asserted that Appellant lost his AACSB AQ status by not 

teaching for the 18 months prior to applying. (CR 1: 304-305, sec ii) 

Defendant's Assertion that AACSB Standards Required

to be 'currently employed' at time of Application is FALSE

(Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.60-63) 

 Defendant processed Appellant's application as a qualified candidate 

through-out the entire hiring process by Defendant's Hiring Authority. (CR 1: 883-

886, 888, 892) 

 Defendant Admits to EEOC Appellant is AACSB AQ
26 

 Defendant admitted to the EEOC that Appellant met the Chair position's 

minimum qualifications which included being professionally qualified to be 

AACSB Academically Qualified. (CR 1: 865-866; CR 1: 782)) 

 

Judge Vela denied Defendant's prior Motions asserting 

this same argument 

(see Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.60-61) 

 Evidence Reasonable Minds Can Differ

 Defendant made this same argument and the presented same exhibits to 

Judge Vela on March 10, 2015. (CR 1: 23-26, 23 to 112--Defendant's Summary of 

Argument with attachments on Plea to the Jurisdiction and No-Evidence Summary 

Judgment) that Appellant was not qualified because Appellant lost AACSB AQ 

status because: (1) Appellant was not currently employed at time of applying; (2) 

Appellant had not taught in a classroom for prior 18 months. (CR 1: 24-29) 

 Judge Vela found a fact issue existed and denied Defendant's pleadings to 

dismiss on this argument. ( CR 1: 291, 292). 

 

AACSB does not have a requirement that actual teaching of courses is 

required to maintain AACSB AQ status.

(CR 1: 660-61, sec.40 ; CR 1: 896-901 -- AACSB standard 10) 

 AACSB Standard 10 and AACSB White Paper Establish

Appellant Maintained his AACSB AQ Status

(see Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.62-65) 
27 

 Defendant admitted in both its March 9, 2015, Summary of Argument presented 

to Judge Vela and in its Motion for Summary Judgment that the AACSB does not 

have a requirement regarding an 18 month break in employment, but that the 

AACSB looks at a five (5) year period for accreditation of AQ (academically 

qualified) status. (CR 1: 25, Mar 9, 2015, Summary of Argument, p.3, sec. 6: 

'evidence of developmental activities within the past five years..." citing AACSB 

Standard 10) (CR 1:304, sec. i: "discipline based scholarship over the previous five

years" citing its exhibit 16 which is AACSB Standard 10 as shown identified at 

CR 1: 295). 

 AACSB Standard 10 identifies a "non-exhaustive list of possible activities that 

faculty may undertake to support the maintenance of academic or professional 

qualifications" -- too maintain AACSB AQ status: (CR 1: 900 AACSB Standard 

10 - mid page)(CR 1: 904: mid page) 

Relevant journal and/or other business publication editorships and/or 

 editorial board/committee service 

 Consulting activities that are material in terms of time and substance 

 Faculty internships 

 Sustained professional work supporting qualified status 

 Leadership positions in recognized professional/academic societies 

 Advanced academic coursework 

 Relevant, active service on boards of directors 

 Documented continuing professional education experiences 

 Significant participation in professional and/or academic conferences 

 
28 

 =========================== 

 Defendant has produced an AACSB White Paper Deploying Academically 

Qualified Faculty to base its assertion that actual teaching is required to maintain 

AACSB AQ status. (CR 1: 545 Def Ex. 22). This document actually sets out the 

same ways to maintain AACSB AQ status as AACSB Standard 10. The document 

states: (CR 1: 904, mid page) 

 Activities Sufficient to Sustain Academically Qualified (AQ) Status 

 "All faculty members are expected to demonstrate activities that 

 maintain the currency and relevancy of their instruction. Faculty members 

 can maintain qualifications through a variety of efforts including 

 the production of intellectual contributions, professional 

 development, and current professional experience." 

 

APPELLANT ESTABLISHED HE MAINTAINED AACSB AQ STATUS

(see Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.63-66) 

 Defendant's MSJ admitted that AACSB AQ status is maintained / sustained by 

under AACSB guidelines if professor /faculty 'continue to undertake appropriate 

development activities that sustain his ..... intellectual capital and currency in the 

field of teaching'. (CR 1: 305 middle para ). 

 This wording means that a person needs to remain "current in their field of 

teaching." Appellant's "field of teaching" is accounting. (CR 1:660, sec.40) This 

does not mean someone needs to be teaching. (CR 1:660, sec.40) The AACSB 

Sec. 10 does not mention classroom teaching as a requirement to maintain AQ 
29 

currency. (CR 1:660, sec.40). AACSB Standard 10 clearly sets out what activities 

are necessary to "remain current." Actual Teaching is not a requirement. (CR 

1:661, sec.40 top pg). 

 Publishing articles is the main means to maintain AACSB AQ accreditation. 

(CR 1: 900 mid page, 904 mid page) 

 

Appellant's Five Year Look Back Period Maintenance of AACSB AQ Status 

(See Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.64-65) 

 Defendant admits in its Motion for Summary Judgment that there is a "fiveyear look back used in making applications for AACSB accreditation". (CR 1: 

305, top sec) By defendant's own acknowledgement of a five year look back 

period, Appellant was AACSB AQ at the time of the Defendant's selection of the 

Chair opening in August of 2012. 

 Based on Appellant's December 2009 formal record of AACSB AQ while 

employed at the UTPA which ended May of 2010 (CR 1: 890), Appellant would 

have remained AACSB Academically Qualified until May of 2014 without any 

activities. 

 August 2012: date of employment decision. (CR 1: 892, 842-844) 

 ============== 

Appellant Maintained Currency in Appellant's Field 

as Required to Maintain AACSB AQ Status 

 (see Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p.65-66) 
30 

 Appellant's Evidence of Maintaining AACSB Academically Qualified status

 Director of Research Krueger and Associate Dean testified Appellant needed only 

3 publications during the immediate three year period (2009-2012) prior to 

Appellant's application to maintain AACSB AQ status. (CR 1: 914; CR 1: 700, 

p.37, lines 16-23; CR 1: 701, p.38, lines 8-19) 

 Appellant had eight acceptable quality publications (all of which were in 

journals with acceptance rates of less than 30% listed in Cabell's director). (CR 1: 

652-653: sec.6 )(Ex.11: CR 1: 803-04). 

 Appellant's 1st Amended Brief p. 66: Identifies Appellant's other continuous 

AACSB approved activities to maintain currency and AACSB AQ status. 

 ==================================== 

 

 Appellant met the Position's Preferred Qualifications 

 The Chair Job Posting identified the position's preferred qualification as: page 

3. (CR 1: 782) 

Preferred Qualification: AACSB accreditation

 Appellant was formally accredited as AACSB Academically Qualified at the 

time of his application process. (CR 1: 890, 799, 800; CR 1: 652, sec. 6) 

 

 ===================================================== 
31 

 Appellee Brief Sec. D, p.21-22 

Appellee asserts: TAMU-K's first record indicates VanZante was not 

qualified for the position because he did not meet the general and academic 

qualifications required for the position. 

 Appellee / Defendant did not raise this issue in its Motion for Summary 

Judgment. 

 To support this argument, Appellee then refers to Dr.Krueger's first draft of a 

basis for the hiring selections -- CR 1: 848. 

 August 23, 2012: the date this document is marked, and which lists the reasons 

for hiring Dr.Sullivan and for not hiring the other four qualified candidates which 

included Appellant. (CR 1: 848) 

 Appellee did not produce this document to the EEOC on April 5, 2013, as the 

Appellant's official hiring reasons. (CR 1: 850; CR 1: 862, 878-868). Appellee 

presented the August 23, 2012, version written by Dean Dock as its official reason 

for the employment decision. (id) 

 September 17, 2014: Dr.Dock was deposed by Appellant. (CR 1: 665) 

 December 2, 2014: Dr.Krueger's deposition -- First date it was revealed that 

Dr.Krueger made a draft document listing the reasons for the hiring decision of 

which Dr.Krueger had previously provided that to Appellee's internal counsel. (CR 

1: 691l 697, p.24, line 3 to p.25, line 6). 
32 

 December 2, 2014: Dr.Krueger testified that Dean Dock, not Dr.Krueger, 

provided the basis Appellant was not hired, even though Krueger signed the 

August 23, 2012, document. (CR 1: 697, p.25, line 15); 

 After Dean Dock announced to the faculty that Dr.Sullivan was hired, Dean 

Dock then instructed Krueger, Defendant's Director of Research for the College of 

Business, to write up a basis for hiring Sullivan and basis for not hiring the other 

four qualified applicants. (CR 1: 697, p.24, lines 2-14)(CR 1: 848-Krueger's basis). 

(CR 1: 701, p.38, lines 8-12), 

 Dr. Krueger then created a draft version. (CR 1: 697: p.24, lines 19-25). (it is 

this draft version that is the basis of Appellee's argument in this section.) 

 Of the four non-hired qualified applicants, Dean Dock instructed Dr.Krueger 

to only change the reason for not hiring Appellant and Dock provided the 

explanation. (CR 1: 697, p.25, line 15) (CR 1: 698, p.28, lines 10-15; CR 1: 701, 

p.39, line 23 to p.40, line 16): 

 Dock's basis: 

Dr.Vanzante does not meet the two salient position requirements: (1) professorial 

experiences that meet the current college expectations of a Full Professor and (2) 

AACSB Academically Qualified (AQ) status. (CR 1:850) 

 -------------------------------------------------- 

 Dr.Krueger's version stated: 
33 

 a. Appellant Vanzante had gone to work for a university that was already 

AACSB-accredited; and 

 b. Appellee "was interested in someone who is willing to work here to make 

our CBA an AACSB-accredited institution." (CR 848--last sentence in alleged 

reason Vanzante was not hired) 

 Dr.Krueger's words evidence that Appellant's employment at an AACSB 

accredited institution is exactly what Appellee was looking for: Appellant 

Vanzante had started at UTPA to gain AACSB experience and AACSB 

accreditation process which is what Dr.Krueger said Appellee wanted. (Appellant 

1st Amended Brief p.26-top 29 

 Dr.Krueger: Dean Dock did not think Appellant leaving 

TAMU Kingsville (Appellee) or petty issues of past employment were relevant to 

the hiring decision. (CR 1: 698, p.27, lines 3 to 14). 

 April 5, 2013, Appellee acknowledged to the EEOC that: 

 "In Dr.Krueger's letter to Dean Dock recommending Dr.Sullivan for the 

Department Chair position, he stated that 'Dr.VanZante does not meet the two 

salient position requirements: (1) professorial experiences that meet the current 

college expectations of a Full Professor and (2) AACSB Academically Qualified 

(AQ) status." (CR 867, 2nd para from bottom) 

 Appellee Defendant represented to the EEOC that Krueger wrote the August 

23, 2012, document signed by Dr.Krueger, when the truth was Dean Dock 

provided some explanations. (CR 321). 
34 

 April 5, 2013, Appellee acknowledged to the EEOC that Appellant met both of 

the qualifications for the Chair position: 

 "...Dr.Krueger's conclusion that Dr.VanZante did not possess professorial 

experiences that met current college expectations of a Full Professor and did not 

meet AACSB Academically Qualified (AQ) status may have been somewhat 

speculative at the time..." (CR 868, 1st full para). 

 Appellee follows this admission with: 

 "..the fact remained that Dr.Sullivan was the best candidate for the Department 

Chair position, as determined by the Search Committee, Dr.Krueger, and Dr. 

Dock." (CR 868, 1st full para, last 3 lines). 

 Appellee knew this was false when made to the EEOC: the Search Committee 

and Chair of the Search Committee had determined Dr.Sullivan was not qualified 

and not an acceptable candidate for the Chair position. (CR 1: 836-839; 840, 871, 

872 sec.10; 846) 

 ================== 

III. Appellee's asserted legitimate reasons: p.22-33 

 III.A: TAMU had several legit reasons p.23 

A.i p.23: Appellee alleges the The 2006 Release and Settlement as the 

legitimate reason Appellant was not hired. 

 

2006 TAMU Corpus Christi Settlement and Release
35 

 Appellant's 1st Amended Brief at Pages 20-32: Appellant was not prohibited 

from applying for the Chair position: Appellant sets out in detail at Plaintiff's 1st 

Amended Brief pages 20-32 facts and argument establishing 2006 Release and 

Settlement excluded Appellant's application for this endowed Chair position. 

Appellant's 2006 Release and Settlement Agreement with Texas A&M Corpus 

Was Not the Basis Defendant Did Not Hire Appellant 

 Appellant's 1st Amended Brief, Pages bottom p.12 to top of p. 17: The 2006 

Release and Settlement was not a basis of the decision not to hire Appellant in 

August of 2012. 

 September 17, 2014: Dean Dock testified that Dock hired Dr.Sullivan: stating 

"Carol, I hired Carol as Chair of the Department of Accounting, and at the 

professorial rank of full professor." (CR 1: 664; 666, p.6, lines 15-19) 

 August 6, 2012: Dean Dock hired and contracted with Sullivan: offered 

Sullivan the Chair position and Sullivan accepted. (CR 1: 842-844) 

 -- (Sullivan's acceptance on last page, (CR 1: 844) 

"I accept this proposal without any revisions. Thank you for the 

opportunities and I look forward to contributing to the excellence at Texas A&MKingsville." 

 "Respectfully, 

 Carol Sullivan (signature) 
36 

 Dean Dock provided the basis Appellant was not hired: Dock's "changes 

dealt with Neal Vanzante". (CR 1: 697, p.25, line 15); . (CR 1: 698, p.28, lines 10-

15; CR 1: 701, p.39, line 23 to p.40, line 16). 

 Basis Dean Dock stated Appellant was not hired: (CR 1: 850) 

Dr.Vanzante does not meet the two salient position requirements: (1) 

professorial experiences that meet the current college expectations of a Full 

Professor and (2) AACSB Academically Qualified (AQ) status. 

 ======================== 

Appellee Brief: Sec. A.ii. p.23-25: 

Appellee asserts that Sullivan was better qualified for the position of Chair 

Appellant addresses this issue in Appellant's First Amended Brief at p.80-83. 

Defendant's Own Records Establish Carol Sullivan was not Qualified

 The Chair Search Committee members Associate Dean Aukerman, the Chair 

of the Search Committee evaluated and determined Dr. Sullivan was not qualified 

for hire. (CR 1: 838)(CR 1: 837)(CR 1: 836)(CR 1: 840) (CR 1: 871, 872 

sec.10)(CR 1:846) 

Dr.Sullivan did not meet the Appellee's requirement of five year employment in 

rank to qualify for Full Professor

 (Appellant's 1st Amended Brief at p.80-83) 

 Appellant sets out this argument in detail at Appellant's First Amended Brief, 

pages 80-83. 
37 

 Defendant required five years of employment in position of Associate Professor

or higher rank before qualifying to be placed into Full Professor position. (CR 1: 

651, sec. 3)(CR 1: 911, sec. B.4.1.6(b)--Faculty Handbook). Sullivan had only 

three years of employment in position of Associate Professor at the time Defendant 

hired Sullivan. (CR 1: 651, sec. 3) 

 Dr.Sullivan's application and cover letter did not provide a work history to 

determine whether Sullivan met the minimum required qualification of five years 

in rank to be a Full Professor. (CR 1: 823-825 Sullivan application). 

 December 11, 2013, fifteen months after Sullivan was hired, Appellee

produced a new work history to the EEOC to attempt to show Sullivan met 

requirement of employment in rank for five years. (CR 1: 908, 906) 

 Defendant had to intentionally misrepresent Sullivan's work history to the 

EEOC adding Dr.Sullivan's 2012-2013 year of employment with the University of 

St. Thomas which occurred after Appellee hired Sullivan in August of 2012. (CR 

1: 908) 

 Appellee also identified Sullivan's positions of Visiting Associate Professor 

which are not positions of 'rank'. (CR 1: 651, sec. 3). 

 ============================== 
38 

Appellee Brief III.B.i. p.26-27: 

Appellee alleges Dr Aukerman hired Sullivan 

 This is not correct. Dr.Aukerman had found Dr.Sullivan not qualified and 

unacceptable for the position. CR 1: 840, 846, 872 sec. 10) 

Decision-maker

 Appellant provides detailed factual support to show Dean Thomas Dock was the 

legal / actual decision-maker at Appellant's 1st Amended Brief bottom of page 12 

to top of page 17. 

 This includes: 

 March 20, 2012: Dean Dock drives to Victoria, Texas, to privately 

interview Carol Sullivan (CR1: 834) (CR1: 728, p.43, line 14 to p.44, line 8) 

 Dean Dock brings Carol Sullivan to campus for interview despite the Search 

recommending not to interview Sullivan. (CR 1: 872, sec.10) 

 July to August 2012, the Chair Search Committee and Faculty met with Carol 

Sullivan and determined that Carol Sullivan was not qualified and 'unacceptable' 

for the Chair position. (CR1: 836-839). 

 July 16, 2012: Associate Dean Aukerman, notified Defendant's Hiring Manager 

that the College of Business Search Committee had determined that Sullivan was 

not qualified for the chair position. (CR1: 840) 
39 

 August 6, 2012: Dean Dock notified the faculty that he had hired Carol Sullivan 

for the Chair opening and entered into a contract with Carol Sullivan who agreed 

to all terms of employment-- Associate Dean Aukerman and Provost Gandy are 

copied. (CR1: 842-844) 

 August 15, 2012: Associate Dean Dr.Aukerman notified Defendant's Hiring 

Authority, that Dean Dock's hiring of Carol Sullivan had been an "Inappropriate, 

unethical, and/or illegal actions of Dean Tom Dock". (CR1: 871; 872 sec.10) 

 (10) hiring of Carol Sullivan for the Accounting and Finance 

Department Chair position who was not recommended for interview by the search 

committee and who the faculty have voted 8 to 1 that Sullivan was 'unacceptable'. 

"Tom Dock had decided previously that he wanted to hire her." (CR 1: 872, sec. 

10) 

 August 16, 2012: Associate Dean Aukerman notified Provost Gandy that the 

department had determined that Sullivan was not qualified for nor acceptable for 

the Chair position." (CR1: 846) 

 August 29, 2012: Appellee notified Appellant "the search has been 

successfully completed" and Appellant "was not the candidate selected for the 

position". (CR1: 852) 

 August 31, 2012: Defendant identified in its Applicant log that Carol Sullivan 

was the candidate 'hired' and Vanzante 'not hired'. (CR1:885) 

 Two years later, on September 17, 2014: Dock testified that Dock was the 

decision-maker and stated: “ I hired Carol (Sullivan) as Chair of the Department
40 

of Accounting, and at the professorial rank of full professor". (CR1: 665, p.6, 

lines 15-19) (CR1: 664 for date of deposition). 

 =========================== 

September 13,2012: Defendant removed Dock as the Dean and Associate Dean 

Aukerman became Interim Dean. (CR 1:876) (CR 1: 724, p.29, lines 18-24). 

 Provost Gandy instructed Interim Dean Aukerman that Sullivan was the 

person hired for the Chair opening and go with it. (CR 1: 725, p.30, lines 3-9) (CR 

1: 724, p.28, line 25 to p.29, line 11). 

 September 19, 2013: Interim Dean Aukerman sends memo to Defendant's HR 

Director and to Provost Gandy: (CR 1:927) 

"Upon completion of the search process it was determined that 

 Dr.Carol Sullivan was the most appropriate fit for our needs at this time." 

 Both Interim Dean Aukerman and Provost Gandy knew this reason was false at 

the time it was created to be Defendant's official hiring record. Faculty Search 

Committee and Aukerman had determined Sullivan unacceptable. (CR1: 840) 

(CR1: 871; 872 sec.10) (CR1: 846) 

 Defendant did not reopen the chair selection process after Dock's removal as 

Dean; and Dr.Aukerman testified that the position should have been re-advertised 

after Dean Dock received the faculty determination that Sullivan was not 
41 

qualified. (CR 1: 724, p.29, line 23 to CR 1:725, line 2). (CR 1: 723, p.25, line19 

to CR 1: 724, p.26, line 20) 

 After Dr.Aukerman became Interim Dean in September of 2012, Dr.Aukerman 

met with Provost Gandy who instructed Dr.Aukerman that Dr.Sullivan would be 

hired for the Chair opening. (CR 1: 725: p.30, lines 3-9). Dr.Aukerman testified 

that Appellant closed the position; and Dr.Aukerman and Provost Gandy signed 

off on Dr.Dock's hiring of Dr.Sullivan. (CR 1: 739: p.86, lines 9-15) 

 An employer does not negate the discriminatory actions or discriminatory 

influence of its supervisor by having a third person sign off on the hiring decision. 

(Gee v Principi, 289 F.3d 342, 346, (5th Cir. 2002) 

Tex.Labor Code Used Motivating Factor 

 Plaintiff can establish an unlawful employment action if age was a motivating 

factor even if other factors also motivated the employment action. (See 

Tex.Lab.Code Sec. 125(a). 

"if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary (unlawful) animus 

that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if 

that act is proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is 

liable (under USERRA)" Staub v Proctor Hosp., 131 SW.Ct. 1186, 1193 (2011) 
42 

 The presences of other alleged basis for not hiring an employee does not 

save an employer from liability because causation is under the 'motivating factor' 

standard. Ridley V Harris County, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 42219: end of retaliation 

section). 

 ============================ 

ii. January 7, 2013, start date. 

Appellee asserts: Sullivan the only qualified applicant, "was not able to start until 

after her commitment for that school term had ended." p.27 

 Appellant has shown Appellee had determined Dr.Sullivan was not qualified. 

 

 The job posting identified January 7, 2013, as the date the Chair was needed to 

start working as Chair of the Department. (CR 1: 780). The job posting does not 

state it is the preferred date. (CR1: 780). 

 Martin Brittain, Appellant's Hiring Manager, testified that the normal school 

term would be Sept. 2012, to May 2013; and the Appellee needed someone to start 

in the middle of that school term. (CR 1: 755: p.33, lines 10-20). 

 Martin testified that Appellee required faculty positions to be advertised. (CR 1: 

755: p.30. lines 5-14); Dean Dock changed the start date without re-advertising 

the position in order to hire Dr. Sullivan. (CR 1: 780, 842-844) 

=========================== 
43 

Appellee Brief B.iii. p.29-32 

Appellee asserts that Carol Sullivan was qualified for the position 

 Appellant has demonstrated Dr.Sullivan was not qualified.

 Dr.Sullivan did not meet Appellant's requirement of five years of employment 

in 'rank' of Associate Professor or higher to qualify for full professor. (Detailed 

argument set out in Appellant's First Amended Brief at pages 80-83). 

Appellant has also demonstrated Appellee had determined that Dr.Sullivan was not 

qualified for the Chair position.

 Appellant incorporates his argument above regarding Search Committee and 

Dr.Aukerman determining that Sullivan was not qualified for the Chair position. 

 =========================== 

Appellee Brief B.iii. p.iv. p.33 

TAMU-K did conduct an internal investigation into Dean Dock which 

included Dock's hiring of Dr.Sullivan. 

 On August 15, 2015, Assoc.Dean Aukerman reported findings of an 

investigation to Assistant Dean Martin Brittain in a report titled "“Inappropriate, 

unethical, and/or illegal actions by Dean Tom Dock”. (CR 1:871-874). 

 Dr.Aukerman's investigation also determined Dean Dock's hiring of 

Dr.Sullivan was inappropriate, unethical, and/or illegal. Dr.Aukerman determined 

that: (CR1: 872, Sec. 10) 
44 

 Sec (10) The faculty who were involved in the interview of Carol Sullivan for 

the Accounting and Finance Department Chair position indicated that she was 

unacceptable by a margin of 8 to 1. "Tom Dock had decided previously that he 

wanted to hire her. She was not recommended for an interview by the search 

committee." (CR1: 872, Sec. 10) 

 PRAYER 

 For all the above reasons, Appellant Neal Vanzante requests this Court to vacate 

and/or reverse the Trial Court’s Order Granting Defendant Motion for Summary 

Judgment, and remand / order Plaintiff’s lawsuit back to the trial court to be placed on its 

trial docket. Appellant also requests any and all relief to which he is entitled at law or in 

equity, and requests general relief. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 _/s/ Chris McJunkin________ 

Chris McJunkin 

State Bar No. 13686525 

2842 Lawnview 

Corpus Christi, Tx. 78404 

Tel: (361) 882-5747 

Fax: (361) 882-8926 

cmcjunkin@stx.rr.com

 

 
45 

 

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of December 2015, a copy of the foregoing 

was delivered in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 

following person: 

Anne Mackin, Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Attorney General - Litigation Division 

P.O.Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Tx. 78711-2548 

Fax: (512) 320-0667 

Anne.Mackin@texasattoneygeneral.gov 

 

 _/s/ Chris McJunkin________
46 

 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

 Pursuant to TRAP 9.4(i)(2)(C), I hereby certify that Statement of Facts, 

summary of argument, argument, conclusion and prayer contain 7,369 words as 

determined by WORD 2007; and that it has been prepared in conventional typeface 

no smaller than 14 point for text. 

 _/s/ Chris McJunkin________