Loyola University’s court cases stemming from the “Pathways” plan moved forward over the summer. Loyola filed additional motions in four of the seven civil lawsuits against the university and filed answers in each case, according to court records.
Seven of the professors terminated by “Pathways” filed civil lawsuits against the university in April. These cases charged Loyola with both breach of contract and breach of contract in bad faith due to the claimed violation of termination procedures established in the Faculty Handbook. The Faculty Handbook is part of a faculty member’s contract.
Loyola’s latest actions in the cases were a normal step taken in civil cases, according to Paul Lovett, associate professor of law. In the cases against Nancy Dupont, Mary Blue and William Hammel, former mass communication professors, and Margaret Dermody, former education professor, Loyola filed dilatory exceptions of prematurity.
These motions are typically filed toward the beginning of a lawsuit. The motions stated that the defendant doesn’t believe the lawsuit is ready for review, because certain steps still need to be taken before the lawsuit can proceed, Lovett said. The dilatory exception of prematurity doesn’t address the truthfulness of any of the allegations, but asserts that it is too soon for the lawsuit to be filed and considered, Lovett added.
In a document filed in the Nancy Dupont v. Loyola University New Orleans lawsuit, the dilatory exception of prematurity said the claims should be “dismissed as premature until the President of Loyola University New Orleans has fully considered the recommendation of the University Rank and Tenure Committee and rendered a final decision in the matter.”
Michael Allweiss, the legal representation for Blue and Dupont, said the URTC reached certain conclusions, and Loyola believed it was too soon to file suit until the Rev. Kevin Wildes, S.J., university president, responded to the recommendation.
The dilatory exception of prematurity was withdrawn in the cases of Hammel and Blue. According to Allweiss, the motions that weren’t withdrawn remain but are “no longer a real issue” because Loyola took the step that was the basis for the motion and the cases are moving forward.
Wildes decided not to overturn his original decision on the firings. He said he considered the URTC’s findings and thanked them but decided to let everything stand.
In the eleven appeals it heard, the URTC concluded that the professors were wrongfully terminated and suggested reinstatement.
The answer filed in each case is a normal and standard step in the litigation process, Lovett said. It is a defendant’s response to the allegations filed by the plantiff. Typically, the answer may affirm that certain allegations took place but deny others stated in the petition for damages.
Lovett said the next step typical in civil lawsuits is discovery, where lawyers investigate facts and identify witnesses, and depositions may follow. This process can take many months and sometimes even years, he added.
Douglas Moore, part of the legal representation for Loyola, said that nothing substantiative has happened at any stage of the litigation, which is “still in its infancy.” He said that Loyola maintains the position that its actions were in accordance with the Faculty Handbook.
Allweiss said that the cases are moving forward and are in litigation, and he couldn’t comment on the specifics of the case. “We feel very strongly about the lawsuit,” he said.
Dermody and her legal representation didn’t provide comment by press time.
Blue wrote in an e-mail that it was too early to tell how her case was going.
“It is heartbreaking to me to feel I have to do this. I devoted over half of my life to my students and colleagues at Loyola. Rethinking a decision that to buy a pair of shoes was a mistake is one thing. Feeling like you have to rethink half of your life as a mistake is another,” she wrote.
Tara Templeton can be reached at [email protected].
Lauren LaBorde contributed
to this report.
