Opinion ID: 170076
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: university defendants

Text: Stating that Mr. Evers had admitted the underlying actions described in the Audit Report and disputed only the conclusions drawn therefrom, the district court ruled that he had failed to come forward with enough evidence of the falsity of statements in the Audit Report to warrant a trial against the University Defendants on his liberty-interest claim. Aplt.App. Vol. 2 at 535. The court rejected his contention that because there is no indication of personal gain or of the requisite intent to commit fraud, a material issue of fact exists regarding the report's falsity. Id. It noted further that any intent to deceive is questioned and downplayed in the report itself, which concludes that his actions were ` either an attempt to deceive, or exceptionally bad judgment.' Id. at 536 (quoting Audit Report) (emphasis added). The court concluded that the report here simply attempted to set forth the universe of plaintiff's plausible motives in acting in a manner deemed fiscal misconduct in violation of University policy. . . . While neither conclusion is compl[i]mentary toward plaintiff, neither are these alternatives both false. Id. at 537-38. Based on our de novo review of the record, we respectfully disagree. Mr. Evers came forward with evidence (largely his own sworn testimony) sufficient to establish a triable fact issue regarding the falsity of statements in the Audit Report. First, Mr. Evers expressly disputed the report's assertions that he made misrepresentations in the foreign-teaching and termination-date incidents. The record reflects that, as described above, Mr. Evers's version of these events was materially different from the findings in the Audit Report. And with respect to the administrative-leave incident, although Mr. Evers did not dispute the substantial truth of the Audit Report's description of his actions, he challenged the nontrivial conclusions regarding his intent. The report charged him with fiscal misconduct, which, according to the University's own explanation of this term, requires intentional acts or failures to act in order to obtain unauthorized or unlawful gain. Id. at 247. According to the explanation, The primary factor that distinguishes fiscal misconduct from error is the intent of the person taking the underlying action. Id. Thus, key to the charge of fiscal misconduct was Mr. Evers's intent in taking the undisputed actions. But intent is the quintessential factual question. United States v. Bohl, 25 F.3d 904, 909 (10th Cir.1994). Although the district court characterized the Audit Report as simply attempt[ing] to set forth the universe of plaintiff's plausible motives in acting in a manner deemed fiscal misconduct, Aplt.App. Vol. 2 at 537, we read it as asserting more. Indeed, if Mr. Evers only used bad judgment or, as he asserts, made a good-faith attempt to follow applicable policy and law, then the charge of fiscal misconduct was unfounded. Therefore, we hold that there were material fact issues in dispute regarding the falsity of the charge of fiscal misconduct. Summary judgment on the falsity element of the claim cannot be sustained.