§ § LILLIAN MILLS, in her capacity as § Dean of the McCombs School of § Business at the University of Texas at § Austin, ETHAN BURRIS, in his official § capacity as Senior Associate Dean for § Academic Affairs of the McCombs § School of Business at the University of § Texas-Austin, SHERIDAN TITMAN, in § his official capacity as Finance § Department Chair for the McCombs § School of Business at the. [...] After careful consideration of the memoranda in support of and in opposition to the motions, and in light of the parties’ arguments advanced at the hearing, the Court, for the reasons that follow, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. [...] ¶ 47–48.) Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that 5 Case 1:23-cv-00129-DAE Document 51 Filed 09/05/23 Page 6 of 32 Titman ultimately forwarded him the email from Kothare and added that Plaintiff did not “seem to be making friends” and that it was “probably in [his] best interest to come up with a class for the Spring that is likely to be popular,” and “[i]n any event, the appropriate response is to joi. [...] ¶ 39.) Additionally, Plaintiff has alleged that Carvalho was told that he has “the power to have him not be attached to the center” and that Burris told Carvalho that “he might not approve Lowery’s appointment to the center in the future because of his speech.” (Id. [...] First Amendment retaliation To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) he suffered an adverse employment decision, (2) he spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern, (3) his interest in the speech outweighs the government’s interest in the efficient provision of public services, and (4) the protected speech motivated the adverse employment action.” Bevill.
- Pages
- 32
- Published in
- United States of America
