Opinion ID: 3155357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preparing Weil’s Second Behavior Contract

Text: The faculty defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on Weil’s retaliation claim regarding his behavior contract. Weil has not pointed to evidence that his protected speech was a “substantial or motivating factor” in the faculty’s decision to create a behavior contract. 7 See Ambrose, 303 F.3d at 493. Eisenhauer, who spearheaded the formulation of Weil’s behavior contract, averred that he prepared the contract to “address Weil’s behavior” during his CMA rotation. In an attempt to survive summary judgment, Weil pointed to two pieces of evidence he alleged revealed a retaliatory motive: (1) in a draft-contract circulated among the faculty, one member commented that the faculty “[m]ay want to avoid suggesting that we anticipated him to not complete the program?”; and (2) in an email between two other faculty members, one really going on.” 6 The District Court determined that Dr. Greenberg was not a state actor as to his decision to dismiss Weil from CMA. We need not address that conclusion because Dr. Greenberg was entitled to summary judgment for the reasons discussed herein. 7 A behavior contract is a written document that informs an LHU student of their particular conduct that violates the school’s policies or procedures. Weil was presented with a first behavior contract in April of 2009, before he began his clinical rotations. That behavior contract detailed the faculty’s concerns with Weil’s conduct, specifying that Weil had been late to class, was absent without permission, demonstrated a lack of sensitivity toward his peers, and behaved unprofessionally by confronting faculty 7 wrote: “Spoke about these issues with students yesterday have (sic) some ideas to share to maybe get them out earlier if they don’t play nice in the sandbox.” However, no reasonable juror could conclude that this evidence alone would be sufficient to establish a retaliatory motive. As to the first, the comment was directed to a section in the contract describing Weil’s behavior that resulted in his first behavioral contract, see supra n.7— Weil signed that contract before he ever began his preceptorship about CMA. Thus, any concern about Weil’s ability to complete the program predated his protected speech. As to the second faculty comment, there is no real suggestion in it that the faculty intended to punish Weil for reporting his ethical concerns at CMA. If anything, the comment is consistent with the defendants’ evidence that they created the contract to address longstanding and continuing concerns about Weil’s professionalism and competence. As the District Court described on page 30 of its memorandum opinion, “the record makes clear that the PA Program faculty evaluated Weil’s poor performance at CMA based on many of the incidents and complaints McGraw experienced, and any discussion and dissent among the faculty was over how to interpret Weil’s clinical failings and what weight to ascribe each incident.” Because Weil has pointed to no evidence to the contrary, he cannot survive summary judgment on that claim.