A federal judge has ordered that a former Auburn University employee who filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in October must show cause for filing the suit by Monday, Dec. 21.
W. Matthew Davis, former Tigers Unlimited employee, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the University in October. Davis’ suit alleges the University fired him after he conducted an audit of tickets designated as part of the Tigers Unlimited program and found between 3,500 and 3,800 tickets that were meant to be sold through the Tigers Unlimited program were instead being sold at face value.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles Coody issued the order Nov. 30 in response to a motion filed Nov. 25 from defendants to dismiss the lawsuit.
Defendants named in the motion include: Auburn University, the Board of Trustees, President Jay Gogue, Athletic Director Jay Jacobs, Auburn University Athletics COO David Benedict, Executive Associate Athletic Director Rich McGlynn and Associate Vice President of the Office of Audit, Compliance and Privacy Kevin Robinson.
The motion argues the defendants are protected from Davis' allegations by the 11th Amendment and the Alabama Constitution.
"Well-established Eleventh Amendment precedent expands immunity to state universities and their boards of trustees, precluding any claims for monetary damages or equitable relief against Auburn and the Board," the motion reads. "That same precedent makes clear that the Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar precludes similar official capacity claims against individual defendants, particularly in employee termination cases where no ongoing violation of federal law can be established. Accordingly, no official capacity claims against the Individual Defendants can stand. Plaintiff’s state law claim is barred by Section 14 of the Alabama Constitution."
The motion also argues that Davis has failed "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
"As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails its foundational obligation to present specific facts demonstrating how the conduct of each defendant specifically violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights," the document reads. "Ignoring that pleading deficiency, Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim additionally fails because Plaintiff cannot show that any offered speech was made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim additionally fails because Plaintiff lacks membership in a protected class sufficient to maintain an equal protection “class of one” claim, and Plaintiff had no property interest in his employment such as would afford him due process protections. Alternatively, even if Plaintiff could get over these fundamental failures, the Individual Defendants are all entitled to qualified immunity."
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
