A lawsuit filed by three African American women alleging Missouri Southern State University President Bruce Speck racially discriminated against them during his time at Austin Peay State University, has advanced to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
Only the college remains as a defendant in the action. Speck and other co-defendants were dismissed as defendants earlier. The appeal was filed after a federal judge dismissed the suit Jan. 16.
In the lawsuit, which was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, a former Austin Peay employee claimed Speck made "covert racial" remarks directed at her.
The lawsuit said that Speck, who served as vice president of academic affairs at the university, insulted two of the plaintiffs, Jacqueline Wade, director of the university's African American Cultural Center (AACC) and Nancy Dawson by saying
"he 'was tired of your arm-twisting and resistance to my decisions.'
He also made clear that he would not tolerate Dr. Wade’s and Dr. Dawson’s 'pushiness' and 'uppityness.' Dr. Wade was offended by the latter comment as 'covert racial denigration.' "
At the time, Dr. Wade was fighting the administration over cuts to her staff's budget. The lawsuit says, "Dr. Wade 'limped along' without adequate staff and funds. She felt that none of the co-curricular programs directed by Caucasian directors suffered the same budget and staff cuts."
In the lawsuit, Dr. Wade says she was racially harassed by Dr. Speck on another occasion as she battled for her job, harassment which led her to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In 2003, Dr. Hoppe (university president Sherry Hoppe) proposed a reorganization plan for APSU. The AACC and the AASP (African American Studies Program) were assigned to the Department of History and Philosophy. Dr. Wade and Dr. Dawson objected, and ultimately Dr. Speck placed the AACC as a direct report to the Dean of the College of Arts and Letters. Dr. Wade states she was not given an opportunity to upgrade her administrative rank under this new reporting line and the AACC did not receive any funding support from the College of Arts and Letters. Dr. Wade received a memorandum from Dr. Speck which she considered to be very antagonistic, amounting to racial harassment. She responded the same day and from then on felt she was treated in a hostile manner by Drs. Hoppe, Speck, and Filippo. Dr. Wade attests that various studies and investigations showed the existence of racism on the APSU campus.
The lawsuit was dismissed Jan. 16, with the judge noting that even if the allegation that Dr. Speck made the "uppityness" comment was true, it was not enough to show that Austin Peay had a hostile work environment.
The judge also claimed the women had failed to prove they were discriminated against by the university or were wrongfully fired.
No hearing date has been scheduled for the appeal.
13 comments:
This explains why Austin Peay was so anxious to get rid of Speck. He wasn't supposed to come to MSSU until June, but Austin Peay told him to go ahead and pack his bags right after MSSU hired him in January.
According to the information provided, it sounds like these ladies didn't like the decisions, didn't have the facts to defend their progams and resorted to the old time tested and proven "racial discrimiation" claim.
Hopefully the appeal fails as miserably as the original. They deserve nothing other than a handshake and directions out the door.
Let us not forget that six other universities, including Austin Peay, chose not to hire Dr. Speck when he applied for president's jobs. Only MSSU offered him a presidency, and that was because the other finalist pulled out.
Randy explain this. Your headline says the lawsuit against Speck went forward, but the first paragraph says Speck was dismissed from the suit. So which is right? Did a lawsuit against speck go forward or was Speck dismissed, which would mean a lawsuit without Speck went forward. If the lawsuit does not include Speck, why did you put up such misinformation the heading? Why do you want folks to think a lawsuit against Speck went forward if it did not? What you wrote really is a lawsuit against the school went forward and Speck is not part of it.
Randy explain this. Your headline says the lawsuit against Speck went forward, but the first paragraph says Speck was dismissed from the suit. So which is right? Did a lawsuit against Speck go forward or was Speck dismissed, which would mean a lawsuit without Speck went forward. If the lawsuit does not include Speck, why did you put up such misinformation the heading? Why do you want folks to think a lawsuit against Speck went forward if it did not? This is the kind of thing that gives blogs such a bad reputation.
The headline says the lawsuit charges Speck with racial discrimination. That is absolutely correct. References to Speck's conduct are featured throughout the petition. It is not uncommon to drop individual defendants from lawsuits to concentrate on the defendant with the deep pockets.
Randy you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion but of law. If Speck was dropped from the suit then the lawsuit against Speck did not go forward. The Lawsuit against the school did. There are no ifs ands or buts about this. Your headline is wrong, as often happens, you just refuse to see the facts and deny the truth.
Again, though it appears you have a hard time understanding the concept, the lawsuit still says Speck made the statements. He was removed as a defendant, but nothing else changed. The suit is against Austin Peay because it allegedly allowed someone like Speck, who was in a responsible position to act in an irresponsible manner. You can play all of the legal games you want, the people who filed the lawsuit are still insisting Speck made the comments and took other actions that the college did nothing to prevent. Without the alleged actions of Bruce Speck, this lawsuit would have vanished months or years ago.
Randy you are still wrong, no ifs ands or buts and no legal games. The lawsuit chargng Speck was dismissed, the lawsuit that remains charges the school not Speck, these are indisputable facts that make your headline wrong. Your interpretation of the basis for the lawsuit against the school is not relevant. The simple fact is that there is now no lawsuit charging Speck, not any, none. Your continue to display this basic flaw; you can not or will not admit an error.
I admit errors when I make them. I have always found it to be a foolish policy to say I am wrong when I am right. Of course, I am not the one with a vested interest in making Bruce Speck look good.
I have no interest in making Speck look good either, I have no affiliation with the University or with Speck. My only interest is honesty and fairness two things you seem to have no respect for.
Anonymous: Fighting a losing battle here expecting honesty and integrity from Turner.
you are retarded dude it says the last suit was dropped but that it is going to the sixth court of appeals meaning a new suit is coming forth
Post a Comment