A few days ago, I posted about my client Professor Lauren Gilbert's summary termination from St. Thomas University College of Law in Miami and the lawsuit I had filed seeking her reinstatement and the provision of the academic due process rights guaranteed by her contract. I promised to provide updates about the case. Today, the ABA Journal has reported on the case. The article about the case contains the following passage:
According to a statement from St. Thomas University sent to the ABA Journal, “The law school is fully adhering to our guidelines by providing Lauren Gilbert with a hearing. . .
When asked to clarify whether there was or will be a hearing, a university spokesman did not explain, and referred back to the statement"
As of this time, neither I nor Professor Gilbert have received any notification that Professor Gilbert will be provided with a hearing. Moreover, under the law faculty handbook, which are the "guidelines" that apply to her employment, a hearing would only be necessary if the informal procedures required by the handbook failed to resolve the situation. Both the informal procedures and the formal hearing required by the contract only apply to tenured faculty members, and the handbook is clear that they must remain as salaried employees while these processes are taking place. Thus, I have made it very clear in my communications with the University's attorneys that Professor Gilbert must first be reinstated to her position before any of the due process to which she is entitled may commence. I have emailed STU's attorneys seeking a clarification of this seemingly false and misleading statement. I will post an update when and if I receive a clarification.
There is another curious statement in the article. The spokesperson stated that "Our investigation into a very serious matter involving Gilbert's conduct is ongoing." This raises a question of why STU would be investigating an employee that has already been terminated? Wouldn't it make more sense to conduct the investigation first? This seems like an effort to simply tarnish Professor Gilbert's reputation by suggesting without proof that she has engaged in "very serious" behavior warranting investigation. This is just the latest example of STU's "very serious" ill-treatment of Professor Gilbert.
UPDATE: The Circuit Court Judge assigned the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, the Hon David C. Miller, has just issued a very stern order in the case ordering STU to respond and preemptively denying any requests for an extension. STU's response is due September 3, 2024. The text of the order follows:
ORDER TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
This case came up for review and the Court, noting the multiple appearances of
counsel for the Defendant St. Thomas University Inc. on 8/16/24, 8/19/24 and
8/20/24 but no response to the Complaint, therefore, it is;
Ordered and Adjudged that the Defendant shall file a response to the Complaint on or
before September 3, 2024.
This deadline may not be extended by agreement and the mere filing of a
Motion to Extend this deadline will NOT toll the time to fully comply with this
Order. The failure to timely comply will result in the entry of a Court Default
upon EXPARTE application for same through CourtMap by opposing counsel
without further Notice, Hearing or opportunity to be heard. This is the only
Notice the parties will receive.
Any Motion for Extension of Time filed but not yet on the Docket (there is not
one filed at this time), is denied.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 21st day of August,
2024.
(emphasis in original)
I don't want to read too much into one court order, but I have practiced in the Florida courts for the last decade and don't ever recall seeing an order like this with so much bolded, underlined and capitalized language.
Recent Comments