Clemson University: Above The Law
Clemson (S.C.) University is still fighting a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by one of its former employees – although some are beginning to question whether or not the University is deliberately trying to drag the case out in an effort to exhaust the legal resources of the plaintiff.
The suit – filed over a year-and-a-half ago by former Executive Secretary Eugene Troutman – alleges that the school hid tens of millions of dollars in revenue from state lawmakers at the same time it was bemoaning budget cuts and tripling tuition on parents.
Troutman complained about this fiscal mismanagement and was promptly fired, according to the suit.
The case has been dragging on for months now – costing Clemson hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
Furthermore, there’s been no movement in the case since April, when a hearing was held in federal court in Columbia.
In moving for the case to be dismissed, Clemson argued that as an arm of the state it was entitled to “qualified immunity,” a provision of federal law that protects state agencies and officials from legal ramifications if they are found to have violated an individual’s constitutional rights.
Crazy, huh?
Anyway, to keep up with the latest on the lawsuit, we recommend keeping the Tiger Town Observer on your radar screen …
Comments
By CNSYD on October 29th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Plenty of smoke but where is the fire? The Observer has published comments from readers who allege all sorts of illegal practices but the readers allege that the supposed victims are keeping quiet out of fear for their jobs. There are many laws on the books that will protect whistle blowers. A trial attorney would jump at a case of wrongful termination because the employee exposed corruption or illegal acts and then was fired. They would see dollar signs. So it makes me wonder if anything is really there other than some pissed off people unhappy about their salary.
By Stayonthem on October 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Keep after them Fits — only the blogosphere seems remotely interested in exposing the hustlers and huckleberries who inhabit Sikes Hall.
By Ynot on October 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
if there is smoke, rest assured there is fire
above the law ey?
wasting people’s resources, begging for more money…
If the shoe fits….
By Commonman on October 29th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Clemson always pulls out Thomas Clemson’s Will when they want to say the State can not tell them what to do. Then, when they get in a little trouble, they want to assure you they are an arm of the State. They have their cake and eat it too. Not a bad position to be in actually.
By CL on October 30th, 2009 at 8:11 am
I imagine Troutman’s lawyer agreed to take the case on a contingency fee basis, which would mean he is the person whose resources are being strained.
And Clemson is not trying to have it both ways. The test for whether an entity is an arm of the state varies depending upon what body of law you are applying.
I am a lifelong Gamecock, but I see nothing wrong with Clemson’s strategy. If they win the immunity issue, then the federal suit is over. If you think the fees are high now, wait until you see what it would cost to actually litigate the merits (depositions, discovery, trial, more appeals, etc.).
By political hack on October 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
This is just like the school boards of most, if not all, the districts in each county claiming they are broke and have to lay off teachers yet they still have their cushy reserve fund they are sitting fat on waiting for the General Assembly to cut them another check for that years expenditures.
By CNSYD on October 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
There have been allegations by third parties of sexual harassment by senior level employees of lower level employees. No names are ever given. It is implied that fear of job loss is causing the silence. Further it is alleged that those at the top of the administration are aware of the situation and have done nothing to correct it. This is typical of the allegations that seem hard to believe. If they really did occur, then no one is going to dare fire the person who goes to law enforcement. These are not laws from which exemption can be argued. Therefore it makes one wonder about the validity of the allegations.
By Darth on October 30th, 2009 at 10:56 am
So how long has Clemson been working with ACORN?
By Darkseid616 on October 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
CNSYD-the problem lies in the timing of Clemson’s actions. When the allegations were brought Clemson moved to terminate on grounds that it felt were justified that were broadly painted as non-performance/compliance. But the timing of their actions reveal that the actions were in direct response to Troutman’s comments and allegations. Their counsel’s strategy to invoke an immunity defense is most likely because they see that Clemson’s actions would appear liable if placed in front of a jury and leave the university exposed.
That said, SC is a state where most of the people in positons of public trust, authority or senior management have ties back to either Clemson or Carolina. For reasons to lengthy to list here when that occurs the university seems to always get the benifit of the past affiliation. Sad but it occurs,not just in SC but in most states,it just seems to stand out here more because of our size…
By Stayonthem on October 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The Clemson administration and Board of Trustees appear to be following recent behaviors seen on Wall Street very closely. The Troutman case is just one instance of a broader pattern of incompetence, arrogance and ignorance. For instance, in the past couple of years:
1) The university administration, with no consultation from faculty or staff, imposed five-day work furloughs on all personnel. Furloughs equated to an approximate 2.5% pay cut.
2) University administrators continued a pattern of awarding themselves massive pay raises amid the downturned economy, prompting the faculty senate to pass a resolution indicating lost trust in the administration. Some of the largest pay raises went to administrators who were technically retired, and those administrators continue to receive excessively high salaries. They are akin to the Saturday Night Live character “The thing that wouldn’t leave.”
3) The university president rated Clemson above every other university in the country on the peer assessment portion of the US News survey, bringing national embarrassment and ridicule to the university.
4) A local real estate developer and recent member of the Tri-County Board of Directors developed an apartment complex where a large portion of students enrolled in the university bridge program are “encouraged” to reside.
5) The U.S. Department of Agriculture launched an investigation into Clemson University after a whistle-blower reported serious infractions in the area of animal research.
6) The university continued to develop its ill-fated “Restoration Institute” on a contaminated Naval Shipyard in North Charleston.
7) The university paid a football coach in excess of $3 million to find another job.
Those are a few items that come to mind.
By CNSYD on October 30th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Darkseid616, I would seriously doubt a firm like Motley Rice would be awed by affiliations. They probably would revel in going against it IF they saw it as a strong case.
By CNSYD on October 30th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Stayonthem, as a former employee of the alleged “contaminated shipyard” please provide details of said “contamination”.
By Darkseid616 on October 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I have to wonder to wisdom of using a plantiff litigation firm as defensive counsel. Unless no defensive litigation firm would represent them?
By Stayonthem on October 30th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
CNSYD — Was it or was it not declared a brown field?
By CNSYD on October 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Stayonthem, Since I left in 1993 I don’t know. The shipyard and Naval Base is a huge land area. Folk use the terms interchangeably which is incorrect. Being a former nuclear shipyard, any areas that did nuclear work had to be declared clean before they were released. There were fuel tanks for non nuclear ships that I don’t know the status of. At present the SPA is preparing part of the Naval Base for a terminal. So before you declare the entire area a brown field you need to know which part you are talking about.
By clemson insider on October 30th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
In response to CNSYD, please tune in via this link
http://www.charleston.net/videos/2008/jun/23/438/ It presents a video tour of Clemson’s Restoration Institute produced by the Charleston Post & Courier.There are numerous published reports about how contaminated Clemson’s site is. This video is just one of them.
By CNSYD on November 1st, 2009 at 11:40 pm
clemson insider, I looked at the video. None of these buildings were part of the shipyard. They were part of the Navy Base. I saw nothing exciting in the video. The state of SC has done ZERO maintenance since taking over the base in 1996. The tenants also do ZERO. IRT the dry cleaning facility, what was said about it is nothing unique. Every dry cleaner in every town used similar chemicals.