Miller v. Sam Houston State Univ
(2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court commits reversible error when its conduct creates an appearance of partiality, including sua sponte dismissing claims without notice or opportunity to respond, severely restricting discovery essential to a party's case, and making prejudicial remarks, thereby violating a litigant's fundamental right to fairness and impartiality.
Facts:
- Audrey Miller joined Sam Houston State University (SHSU) as a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Psychology in August 2007.
- Miller expressed complaints about a heavy, disproportionate workload and disagreed with faculty members on dissertation and thesis committees, leading to her removal from one committee and voluntary step-down from another.
- Miller applied for tenure at SHSU in late 2012, but her application was denied on March 27, 2013, due to a reported lack of collegiality.
- Following her tenure denial, Miller filed sex discrimination and retaliation charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Texas Workforce Commission.
- After learning of her tenure denial, Miller applied for a faculty position at the University of Houston Downtown (UHD) and, during her interview on March 17, 2014, stated she believed her SHSU tenure denial was due to sex discrimination and her complaints about mistreatment of women.
- On April 4, 2014, the UHD search committee was interested in offering Miller a position and asked to contact her SHSU Department Chair, Christopher Wilson; Miller agreed but noted Wilson was one of the individuals about whom she had complained.
- On April 7, 2014, UHD Department Chair Jeffery Jackson called SHSU Department Chair Christopher Wilson to inquire about Miller's tenure denial, and after this call, UHD reversed course and decided not to offer Miller employment.
- UHD filled all three open positions with candidates who scored lower than Miller on its hiring metrics, with Dean Fulton stating the decision was based on concerns regarding Miller's teaching and service due to her SHSU tenure denial, while denying awareness of Miller's discrimination charges.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 28, 2015, Audrey Miller filed suit against Sam Houston State University (SHSU) and Texas State University System (TSUS) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
- On October 6, 2015, Miller filed a separate lawsuit against the University of Houston Downtown (UHD) and the University of Houston System (UHS) in the same district court.
- The district court issued an order for the two suits to be handled jointly, though they were not formally consolidated.
- The district court issued initial orders limiting discovery, requiring court approval for written discovery or depositions.
- At the Initial Case Management Conference on January 25, 2016, the district judge sua sponte dismissed Miller's claims against TSUS and UHS.
- The day after the conference, the district court formally dismissed TSUS and UHS with prejudice.
- Miller moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of TSUS and UHS, which the district court denied the next day.
- Miller filed multiple opposed motions for discovery (January 25, April 13, May 4, May 12, 2016, June 2, 2017), including requests for depositions of material witnesses and specific records, all of which the district court denied or severely limited.
- During the May 25, 2016, deposition of Miller, the district judge attended and participated, admonishing Miller.
- SHSU and UHD moved for summary judgment in June 2016.
- Miller requested a Rule 56(d) continuance for discovery in response to summary judgment motions, which the district court denied.
- On September 30, 2019, the district court granted SHSU's and UHD's motions for summary judgment.
- Miller filed notices of appeal in both cases on October 30, 2019, appealing the district court's rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion and violate a litigant's right to fairness by sua sponte dismissing claims without notice, denying crucial discovery, making prejudicial comments, and thereby warranting reversal and reassignment to a new judge?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Cory T. Wilson
Yes, the district court abused its discretion and violated Miller's right to fairness, warranting reversal of its judgments and reassignment to a new district judge. The court erred by sua sponte dismissing Miller's claims against the Texas State University System (TSUS) and the University of Houston System (UHS) without providing her adequate notice or an opportunity to respond. Citing Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. and Carroll v. Fort James Corp., the court emphasized that fairness for a sua sponte dismissal generally requires both notice of the court's intention and an opportunity to respond, which Miller was not afforded before the immediate dismissal at the initial conference. The dismissal was also with prejudice, denying Miller any opportunity to amend her complaint. It follows that the district court likewise erred in denying Miller's motion for reconsideration. The court noted that forcing Miller to resort to a motion for reconsideration as her sole avenue to oppose dismissal was not a "fair procedure." The determination of whether the Systems were Miller's "employers" under Title VII is a fact-specific inquiry typically applied at the summary judgment stage, not a premature dismissal based solely on the district judge's personal opinion that "Systems don't do anything," making the ruling an abuse of discretion. The district court also abused its discretion by repeatedly and inflexibly denying Miller's requests for discovery, including her opportunities to depose material witnesses. The Fifth Circuit has previously "frowned upon" unnecessary limitations on discovery in Title VII cases (Trevino v. Celanese Corp.) and cited McCoy v. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, which involved similar, suffocating discovery restrictions by the same district judge. The court found that the severe restrictions, which permitted only Miller's deposition (with the judge's participation) before summary judgment briefing and only one limited deposition afterwards, "suffocated any chance for Miller fairly to present her claims." The denial of depositions for key witnesses like SHSU's Department Chair Wilson and UHD's Department Chair Jackson, whose telephone conversation was central to Miller's retaliation claim, prejudiced Miller's substantial rights, making it impossible for her to respond to summary judgment motions. Finally, the court found reassignment of the cases to a new district judge warranted. The district judge's conduct, including prejudicial comments made during the initial conference (e.g., "I will get credit for closing two cases when I crush you") and peremptory rulings, created an appearance of partiality. This satisfied both the lenient test (whether an objective observer would question the judge's impartiality) and the more stringent test (whether the judge would have difficulty setting aside previously-expressed views and if reassignment preserves the appearance of justice) for reassignment, as outlined in In re DaimlerChrysler Corp. The court concluded that reassignment would not disrupt judicial efficiency, particularly because full discovery had not yet occurred in either action.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the fundamental principles of judicial impartiality, due process, and the liberal nature of discovery, especially in Title VII cases. It serves as a significant check on judicial overreach, emphasizing that judges must not only be impartial but also appear impartial. Future cases will cite this decision when challenging district court judges who demonstrate prejudgment, arbitrarily limit discovery, or dismiss claims without proper notice and opportunity to be heard, particularly in complex employment discrimination litigation where extensive fact-finding is often necessary.
