Opinion ID: 2982559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Letters from Young and Brueggemeier

Text: On December 9, 2008, Young sent a letter to Brueggemeier summarizing the vote and discussion that had taken place during the faculty’s meeting. Young noted that the discussion was positive concerning Plaintiffs teaching and service, but that many faculty members had serious concerns about Plaintiffs scholarship. Young briefly summarized the major complaints—lack of focus, principally descriptive papers, and inadequate funding—but also stated that these concerns were not unanimously held. Young’s letter also acknowledged -9- No. 13-3029 Plaintiffs allegations of impropriety by some faculty members and the mixed result of the investigative committee. Next, Brueggemeier composed a letter to Alutto dated December 17, 2008. Brueggemeier explained that Plaintiffs scholarship as a whole lacked focus, and that Plaintiffs recent spate of publications was unexpected and worrying. As for finding, Brueggemeier expressed concern that Plaintiffs funding sources were not competitive or peer-reviewed. Brueggemeier thus recommended that Alutto deny tenure, in line with the faculty vote, principally based on the concerns about Plaintiffs scholarship. 4. Plaintiffs complaints and Alutto ‘sfinal decision Plaintiff did not take these setbacks lying down. On January 5, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a rebuttal letter (which, with exhibits, stretched to over 150 pages) for inclusion in his dossier. Plaintiff raised eight areas of concern. He claimed that Balkrishnan, aided and abetted by Nahata and Brueggemeier, had used the 2007 lawsuit as a basis for recommending denial of tenure. Nahata and Brueggemeier had allegedly poisoned the tenure process in other ways. Plaintiff claimed that Nahata had selected biased external reviewers—in particular, Kreling and Gaither. The alleged bias of these two reviewers stemmed from their relationship with Dr. Craig Pedersen, a COP professor who left the University at the end of 2008. Plaintiff asserted that Pedersen had spread vile comments about Plaintiff throughout Plaintiffs professional network, including with Kreling. Plaintiff also claimed that Nahata’s letter (the one that had actually been written by Buerki) painted Plaintiff in a false light, and in any event, it was inappropriate for Nahata to allow Buerki to write it. As for Brueggemeier, Plaintiff asserted that he had inappropriately prevented the COP faculty from seeing the letter Plaintiff wrote prior to the tenure vote. Brueggemeier had also misrepresented the facts in his letter and set unreasonable -10- No. 13-3029 expectations in his fourth-year review of Plaintiff. Young’s letter summarizing the faculty meeting was also slanted against Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff complained that his dossier did not include a letter from the College of Public Health, Plaintiff’s scholarly collaborators, or a full list of Plaintiff’s publications. Plaintiff asked Alutto to restart the tenure process and bar Balkrishnan, Nahata, and Brueggemeier from participating. After Plaintiff’s rebuttal letter was included in the dossier, the entire package was forwarded to Provost Alutto. But since the COP vote had been negative, Alutto referred the dossier to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee (“UPTC”) for its review. This body of seven faculty members from across the University was headed by Dr. Carole Anderson, Dean of the College of Dentistry. The UPTC members reviewed Plaintiff’s dossier and reached the same conclusion as the majority of the COP’s faculty and Brueggemeier—Plaintiff’s research record was too weak to recommend tenure. Five of the UPTC members voted to strongly recommend disapproval of tenure. Two members voted to weakly recommend disapproval. The UPTC also responded to the numerous allegations raised in Plaintiff’s rebuttal letter and found that Plaintiff’s claims either lacked merit or had no real impact on the tenure process. Anderson noted, however, that the UPTC did not have the resources to investigate these matters fully. Finally, the decision of whether to award or deny tenure came before Alutto. Alutto reviewed Anderson’s report and all of the letters in the dossier, but did not read Plaintiff’s publications. On April 8, 2009, Alutto denied Plaintiff tenure. D. Plaintiff’s Internal Appeal After hearing of Alutto’s decision, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the University Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (“CAFR”), which was chaired by Dr. Marilyn Blackwell. Plaintiff’s complaint essentially rehashed the allegations in his January 5, —11— No. 13-3029 2009 rebuttal letter. Pursuant to the University’s policies, the CAFR had 60 days to investigate Plaintiffs appeal. Blackwell and the CAFR interviewed Plaintiff and received comments from Brueggemeier, Buerki, Nahata, and Young. Blackwell summarized the CAFR’s findings in a letter dated June 28, 2009. The CAFR believed that five aspects of Plaintiffs tenure process violated the University’s rules. The CAFR concluded that there was some reason to think that Kreling and Gaither were not in a position to provide unbiased external reviews, that the COP should have furnished Plaintiff with the list of proposed external reviewers before they were contacted for letters, that Nahata should have found someone other than Buerki to assist him in writing his letter, and that the College of Public Health should have supplied Plaintiff with a letter of evaluation. CAFR found Plaintiffs other claims without merit. CAFR passed Plaintiffs appeal on to the Faculty Hearing Committee (“FHC”), the final level of appeal available within the University. The FHC convened a panel to hear Plaintiffs claims, and the panel met six times between August and October 2009. Plaintiff apparently believed he could not maintain his internal appeal at the same time as the 2007 lawsuit, which was scheduled to go to trial in April 2010. On October 9, 2009, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the 2007 lawsuit. A week later, the district court granted the order and dismissed Plaintiffs case without prejudice. On October 23, 2009, the FHC found that none of Plaintiffs claims had merit. The FHC did despair at the breakdown in collegiality at the COP, and recommended that the University develop rules to account for future such situations. But Plaintiffs appeal was rejected.