IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISIION
Civil Action No: 5:14-CV-432-BO

MARY C. WILLINGHAM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH )
CAROLINA, a body politic and )
corporate institution of the State of )
North Carolina; THE UNIVERSITY )
Of NORTH CAROLINA AT )
CHAPEL HILL, a constituent )
institution of the University of )
North Carolina; CAROL LYNN )
FOLT, sued in her individual and )
official capacities; J AMES )
WARREN DEAN, J R., sued in his )
individual and official capacities; )
ROBERTA ANN OWEN, sued in )
her individual and official capacities;)
and UNNAMED OTHERS; )
)
Defendants. )

NOW COMES plaintiff MARY C. WILLINGHAM (Plaintiff), by and through counsel
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 15, complaining against defendants, THE UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH CAROLINA (individually UNC and collectively Defendants), a body politic and
corporate institution of the State of North Carolina; and THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL (individually UNC-CH and collectively Defendants), a
constituent institution of The University of North Carolina; CAROL LYNN FOLT (individually
Folt and collectively Defendants), sued in her individual and official capacities as chancellor
of UNC-CH; J AMES WARREN DEAN, J R. (individually Dean and collectively
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 29
2

Defendants), sued in his individual and official capacities as provost for UNC-CH; ROBERTA
ANN OWEN (individually Owen and collectively Defendants, sued in her individual and
official capacities as senior associate dean at UNC-CH; and UNAMED OTHERS (individually
Others); alleges and says as follows:
PARTIES:
1. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina and at all
times relevant herein has been entitled to the rights and protections conferred by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Whistleblower Act,
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-84, et seq. (Whistleblower Act).
2. Defendant UNC is a body politic and corporate institution within the State of
North Carolina that is organized and exists pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 116-1, et seq. As such,
Defendant UNC is a State institution that is empowered to sue and be sued.
3. Defendant UNC-CH is a constituent institution of defendant UNC that is
organized and exists pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 116-4, et seq. As such, Defendant UNC-CH is
a State institution that is empowered to sue and be sued. Defendant UNC-CH is located in
Orange County, North Carolina.
4. On information and belief, Defendant Carol Lynn Folt is a citizen and resident of
Orange County, North Carolina. Since at least J uly 1, 2013, Defendant Folt has served as
chancellor for UNC-CH and is hereby being sued in her individual and official capacities as the
chancellor.
5. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Folts actions or inactions, as alleged
herein, were done under the color of state law while she was physically present in Orange
County, North Carolina.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 29
3

6. On information and belief, Defendant J ames Warren Dean, J r. is a citizen and

resident of Orange County, North Carolina and, at all times relevant herein, has served as provost
for UNC-CH and is hereby being sued in his individual and official capacities as the provost.
7. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Deans actions or inactions, as alleged
herein, were done under the color of state law while he was physically present in Orange County,
North Carolina.
8. On information and belief, Defendant Roberta Ann Owen is a citizen and resident
of Orange County, North Carolina. From 2004 to 2014, Defendant Owen served as the senior
associate dean for undergraduate education in UNC-CHs College of Arts and Sciences. As the
senior associate dean, Defendant Owen exercised supervisory authority over Plaintiff at all times
relevant herein and is being sued in her individual and official capacities as senior associate
dean.
9. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Owens actions or inactions, as alleged
herein, were done under the color of state law.
10. Other unnamed Defendants may include others, who are not presently known to
Plaintiff at this time, who were acting under the color of state law and who were instrumental in
causing or condoning the retaliation that Plaintiff experienced, as alleged herein, when those
persons had a legal duty to protect Plaintiff from retaliation for exercising her legal rights.
11. On information and belief and at all times relevant herein, UNC-CH was under
the supervision and control of UNC and Defendant Folt. Further, on information and belief and
at all times relevant herein, Defendants Dean and Owen were under the supervision and control
of UNC, and Defendant Folt. Finally, on information and belief and at all times relevant herein,
Defendant Owen and Unnamed Others were under the supervision and control of Defendants
UNC, Folt, and Dean.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 29
4

12. On information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Defendant UNC has been
statutorily obligated to supervise the actions of administrators at UNC-CH and to ensure that
UNC-CH and its supervisors at all times comply with the law.
13. On information and belief, Defendants individually and severally knew or should
have known the acts or omissions, that UNC-CH through its managers and supervisors took
against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the
North Carolina Constitution, and the North Carolina Whistleblower Act, but refused or otherwise
failed to remediate such actions or omissions to act when each of the Defendants had a duty, as
alleged herein.
14. At all times relevant herein, Defendants Folt, Dean, Owen, and Unnamed others
were decision-makers, or otherwise purposefully influenced the decision-maker(s), in the adverse
actions that UNC-CH took against Plaintiff, as alleged herein.
J URISDICTION AND VENUE:
15. The Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and
1343(a)(3).
16. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked over claims arising under 42 U.S.C.
1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and ancillary
jurisdiction over claims arising under N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-84, et seq. (Whistleblower Act) in
that the claims are factually interdependent.
17. The original complaint in this matter was filed on J une 30, 2014, which date was
within one year (1) after the occurrence of the last act of retaliation, as alleged herein, pursuant
to the Whistleblower Act.
18. This amended complaint asserts claims that arose out of the same conduct,
transaction, or occurrences as that set out in the original complaint for this action.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 29
5

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES:
19. On J uly 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed an EPA Non-Faculty Grievance with UNC-CHs
human resources department to complain about the retaliation that she experienced from
Defendants related to her work demotion and change of work conditions, as alleged herein.
20. To the extent that Plaintiff was required to exhaust her administrative remedies
prior to the filing of this action, which is denied, Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative
remedies for her claims of retaliation because doing so was and would have been futile and
inadequate for the following reasons:
A. The administrative remedies then available to Plaintiff would deprive Plaintiff
of her right to recover her full measure of damages against Defendants,
including that for back pay, mental anguish, pain, humiliation, inconvenience
and damage to professional reputation and other damages that she could
recover in this civil action;
B. The administrative remedies then available to Plaintiff would deprive Plaintiff
of her ability to recover treble damages and reimbursement for her attorney
fees that she could recover in this civil action;
C. The administrative remedies then available to Plaintiff would deprive Plaintiff
of her statutory right to a trial by jury;
D. The administrative remedies then available to Plaintiff would deprive Plaintiff
of her ability to sue any defendant who caused her harm and losses in an
individual capacity;
E. The administrative remedies then available to Plaintiff would deprive, and did
deprive, Plaintiff of an ability to obtain prompt and effective redress of the
retaliation that she faced on a daily work basis. After waiting for more than
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 5 of 29
6

one year after the filing of her grievance, as referenced above, Plaintiff still
had no final decision from the UNC-CHs Board of Trustees.
F. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have failed to post sufficient notice in
accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. 95-9, or otherwise use appropriate means,
to keep its employees, including Plaintiff, informed of their protections and
obligations under the Whistleblower Act, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat.
126-88. On information and belief, UNC-CHs Whistleblower policy
(which is not labeled as such) repeats only some portions of the law, but failed
to inform UNC-CH employees, including Plaintiff, that the employees had the
option to file a civil action for damages in superior court (within one year) or
could file an administrative grievance with UNC-CH (within only 30 days),
but could not file both a civil action and an administrative grievance and
failed to advise employees to seek the advice of personal legal counsel prior to
making the decision; and
G. Any final decision by UNC-CHs Board of Trustees, Plaintiff would not have
been informed by UNC-CH of her right to file a petition for judicial review of
the decision.
21. To the extent required, Plaintiff has satisfied all private, administrative, and
judicial prerequisites for the institution of this action.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS:
Plaintiffs Employment at UNC-CH
22. Around October 2003, UNC-CH hired Plaintiff to serve as contract employee in
the capacity of a part-time learning specialist for UNC-CHs athletic department.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 6 of 29
7

23. As a learning specialist, Plaintiffs job responsibilities were centered on assisting

university athletes, some of whom had learning disabilities, to succeed academically at the
undergraduate level.
24. Around December 2004, UNC-CH promoted Plaintiff to serve as a full-time
learning specialist in the athletic department. Although Plaintiffs job responsibilities remained
essentially the same, Plaintiff began working extensively with athletes from UNC-CHs
revenue sports, consisting mostly of the football and basketball teams.
25. At all times while she served as a learning specialist, Plaintiff met or exceeded the
reasonable work expectations of her employer Defendants.
26. By the 2008-2009 academic year, Plaintiff became disillusioned by what she had
been experiencing first-hand as a learning specialist. Specifically, Plaintiff became increasingly
troubled by the widespread inappropriate, unethical, and corrupt academic assistance that she had
personally witnessed various student-athletes receiving from UNC-CHs officials and staff.
27. Because of this disillusionment, Plaintiff began looking for other employment
outside of the athletic department, but within the areas of academic support, during the 2008-
2009 academic year.
28. On or about J anuary 15, 2010, UNC-CH hired Plaintiff to serve full-time as an
assistant director for UNC-CHs Center for Student Success and Academic Counseling (the
CSSAC).
29. On information and belief, Defendants categorized this assistant director position
at the Center as an at-will non-faculty position.
30. As assistant director, Plaintiff reported directly to Harold Woodard (Woodard),
the associate dean and director for the CSSAC. Instead of focusing solely on athletes, the
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 7 of 29
8

assistant director position for the CSSAC permitted Plaintiff to assist with helping all
undergraduate students, including athletes, on an academic basis.
31. On information and belief, CSSACs stated mission was dedicated to promoting
academic excellence to assist students in achieving their academic goals while enrolled at
Carolina [UNC-CH].
32. Upon Plaintiff being named assistant director, CSSAC had been composed of four
constituent programs: Learning Center, Center for Student Academic Counseling, Summer
Bridge, and Writing Center. On information and belief, the stated purpose of these constituent
programs was to provide support for students in developing the skills and strategies needed to
achieve academic success.
33. As an assistant director, Plaintiff was responsible for training tutors and
overseeing, evaluating, and managing CSSACs programs.
34. Eventually, as part of her duties as assistant director, Plaintiff also served as a
clinical instructor for UNC-CHs School of Education. As a clinical instructor, Plaintiff was
assigned to the Teaching and Learning area and taught peer tutoring courses whenever needed.
35. At all times while she served as an assistant director, Plaintiff met or exceeded the
reasonable work expectations of Defendants.
36. During her tenure as assistant director, Plaintiff played a substantial part in the
following accomplishments:
A. Led project management for supplemental instruction, tutoring, education
course/peer tutoring program, and graduate assistants;
B. Redeveloped the community tutor board;
C. Created and marketed five new/updated programs to students and faculty;

Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 8 of 29
9

D. Communicated new programming to cohort leaders of diverse targeted student

groups;
E. Wrote and piloted a speed reading program based on needs assessments of
graduate and undergraduate students;
F. Led the effort to re-design CSSAC using a five pillar approach, which led to a
shift in culture;
G. Marketed programs on campus via internet, television prompts, and movable
walkway signs;
H. Developed social networking sites for CSSAC including Facebook and
twitter;
I. Redirected staff to measurable result-focused orientation through
establishment of electronic data collection system;
J . Developed and completed live time data collection using technology for all
programming;
K. Updated the center to a total online registration and evaluation along with
calendar appointment system for 28,000 students to access;
L. Wrote and executed animation videos to communicate skills and strategies to
students;
M. Coordinated and supervised staff to support projects with team approach as
well as constant communication updates of progress using data collection
tools;
N. Reserved and coordinated facilities for programming that served over 5000
students;
O. Advised and counseled undergraduate students on coursework;
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 9 of 29
10

P. Facilitated registration with and for students during all semesters including
summer; and
Q. Co-supervised five professionals, student office assistants and graduate
student; among her many work accomplishments.
UNC-CHs Academic Programs for Athletes Become a National Scandal
37. Around J uly 2011, UNC-CHs former football player, Michael McAdoo
(McAdoo), filed a civil action against UNC-CH and the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) for damages and to restore his eligibility to play college football.
McAdoo had been dismissed from the football team and declared ineligible by the NCAA, in
part, for having accepted inappropriate academic help from a UNC-CH tutor. Media
organizations throughout the nation covered the litigation of McAdoos claims.
38. McAdoos lawsuit brought forth a firestorm of media coverage and scrutiny of
UNC-CHs academics for athletes in the revenue generating sports of football and basketball
(collectively revenue sports).
39. Following McAdoos lawsuit and continuously to this date, various issues
pertaining to UNC-CHs academic integrity and athletics in the revenue sports have garnered
national coverage by the media. The national, state, and local media have reported on the
following allegations and more:
A. That the chair of UNC-CHs Department of African and Afro-American
Studies (DAAAS) taught classes where enrolled students, many
consisting of scholarship athletes in the revenue sports, only met a few times,
if at all, for class sessions;
B. That there were 40 or more courses where there was little-to-no evidence that
any professor had taught the courses (no show classes) and that the majority
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 10 of 29
11

of enrollments in the no show classes consisted of UNC-CH athletes in the

revenue sports;
C. That UNC-CH athletes had been placed in certain no show classes to obtain
and/or retain NCAA eligibility status to compete;
D. That multiple courses had forged signatures on submitted grade rolls;
E. That gross grade inflation was being applied for athletes in the revenue sports
who were not able to read or write at the college level in an effort to maintain
their eligibility to compete;
F. That there were 200 lecture-style courses that were confirmed or suspected of
having never held class, dozens of independent studies courses with little-
to-no supervision, and 560 suspicious grade changes for athletes dating
back many years;
G. That a sports agent had been hired by the chair of UNC-CHs DAAAS to
teach a class composed in part of scholarship athletes;
H. That UNC-CH athletes accounted for around 45 percent of the enrollments in
the no show classes over a 10-year period, while consisting of less than 5
percent of the undergraduate student body;
I. That academic tutors were writing papers for UNC-CH athletes in the revenue
sports for the athlete to receive the grades on the work performed by the
tutors; and
J . That UNC-CH counselors had steered UNC-CH athletes in revenue sports
to the no show courses as GPA boosters. (collectively athletic scandals)


Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 11 of 29
12

Plaintiff Engaged in Protected Activity

40. On or about September 2010, Plaintiff reported in good faith to a staff attorney for
UNC-CHs Office of University Counsel her personal knowledge about academic fraud and
cheating in the athletic department, including specific violations of NCAA regulations. Plaintiff
reported among other things such as academic mentors or tutors completing the work for UNC-
CH athletes to artificially keep or make the athletes eligible to compete pursuant to NCAA
regulations by meeting minimum grade point average regulations even though the athletes were
not able to do college level and even high school level work. Plaintiff reported that the coaches
for revenue sports were directing academic advisors to keep the players eligible under NCAA
regulations. The meeting lasted for approximately two and one-half hours.
41. Plaintiff never heard back from UNC-CHs counsel once she reported the
improper, unethical, illegal, and corrupt conduct. In light of receiving no follow up from the
Office of University Counsel, Plaintiff began to believe that the only way to effectively bring
integrity back to academics for athletes in revenue sports was for her to report personal
knowledge in good faith to sources outside the UNC-CH community.
42. Around summer 2011, Plaintiff established contact with Dan Kane (Kane), a
writer for the Raleigh News & Observer (N&O) newspaper. Plaintiff maintained direct contact
with Mr. Kane for many months thereafter.
43. During her discussions with Mr. Kane, Plaintiff would inform him and answer his
questions concerning her personal knowledge about the academic fraud in UNC-CHs athletic
department. Plaintiff described the bogus paper class system that was designed to keep
athletes in revenue sports artificially eligible under NCAA regulations by intentionally causing
a misrepresentation of the athletes true grade point average and to misrepresent many UNC-CH
athletes in revenues sports inability to perform college -evel and even high school-level work.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 12 of 29
13

Plaintiff explained that without this fraudulent system, UNC-CH athletes would never have been
academically eligible under either UNC-CHs internal regulations or under NCAA regulations.
44. Soon after Plaintiffs initial contact with Mr. Kane, Plaintiff informed her
immediate supervisor that she was speaking with the N&O about her personal knowledge
concerning issues related to the athletic scandals that had been reported by the media throughout
the state and nation.
45. On or about October 2012, Plaintiff started a blog where she at times reported in
the public domain about some of her own personal knowledge about issues related to the athletic
scandals at UNC-CH, as alleged herein, that had been reported by the media throughout the
North Carolina and the United States.
46. Plaintiff made these statements in the public sphere on her blog in good faith for
purposes of helping to stop the improper, unethical, and corrupt treatment and services that
UNC-CH faculty and/or staff were providing UNC-CH athletes.
47. On or about October 2012, Plaintiff reported in good faith to UNC-CHs agent,
J ames Martin, about her personal knowledge concerning the academic fraud in the athletic
department, including the paper class and no show class systems that UNC-CH used to
artificially maintain many of their athletes eligibility to compete in the revenue sports under
NCAA regulations.
48. Plaintiff also shared her data with J ames Martin on the low admissions standards
that permitted a significant number of woefully underprepared athletes of the revenue sports to
matriculate at UNC-CH. On information and belief, UNC and/or UNC-CH had hired J ames
Martin to gather evidence regarding the athletic scandals.
49. On or about November 17, 2012, Plaintiff informed her N&O contact, Mr. Kane,
about the academic cheating in UNC-CHs athletic department for athletes in the revenue sports.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 13 of 29
14

50. Plaintiff truthfully explained to Mr. Kane how some UNC-CH athletes who were
not even able to perform college-level work would register for the paper classes and/or the no
show classes. Plaintiff further truthfully explained to Mr. Kane how plagiarism by some of the
UNC-CH athletes in revenue sports was tolerated by UNC-CH faculty and staff.
51. On or about November 18, 2012, the N&O published segments of its interview
with Plaintiff to report about the improper, unethical, illegal, and corrupt academic services and
treatment that some UNC-CH faculty and staff were providing to, or otherwise acquiescing for,
many UNC-CH athletes in revenue sports.
CNNs Special Report
52. From February 23, 2013 to J uly 2013, Plaintiff met in person with numerous
UNC-CH officials, including the chancellor and several deans, to discuss Plaintiffs research
findings regarding the improper, unethical, and corrupt treatment and services that UNC-CH
faculty and/or staff were providing to UNC-CH athletes in revenue sports.
53. Plaintiffs purpose in meeting with UNC-CH officials to report in good faith her
personal knowledge was to cause potentially positive changes and help return academic integrity
to UNC-CH academics for athletes in the revenue sports. Her efforts were to no avail.
54. On or about J uly 2013 and again during the fall of 2013, Plaintiff emailed various
UNC-CH officials, including the provost and members of the Faculty Athletic Council, to share
the findings of Plaintiffs research. Plaintiff again hoped that her meetings would serve as a
catalyst for positive changes and help return integrity to UNC-CH academics for many athletes
in revenue sports. Her efforts were to no avail.
55. J ust prior to J anuary 8, 2014, Plaintiff met for an interview with Sara Ganim, a
news correspondent at Cable News Network (CNN). During the meeting, Plaintiff informed
Ms. Ganim in good faith about her research concerning the low reading and writing scores of
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 14 of 29
15

admitted UNC-CH athletes in the revenue sports. This was the same research that Plaintiff had
attempted to discuss with the UNC-CH officials, as alleged above, but received little to no
interest by them.
56. On or about J anuary 8, 2014, following Plaintiffs interview with Ms. Ganim,
CNN broadcasted nationally a special report on the reading abilities of college athletes.
57. In this special report, CNN cited Plaintiff and her research, which indicated that
a subset of UNC-CH athletes who were suspected of having academic challenges were reading
mostly below the high school grade levels. In this national broadcast of the special report,
CNN cited Plaintiff as being the UNC-CH employee who had conducted the research.
58. On or about J anuary 17, 2014, Defendant Dean and Defendant Folt falsely
informed the attending members of the UNC-CH Faculty Council that Plaintiffs research into
UNC-CHs athlete literacy, as reported by CNN, was so flawed that it had no merit.
59. During this Faculty Council meeting of J anuary 17, 2014, Defendants Dean and
Folt publically referred to Plaintiffs research as a travesty and called Plaintiff a liar before
all the attending members of the UNC-CH Faculty Council. Defendants Dean and Folts
decision to refer to Plaintiff before the entire Faculty Council as a liar and her research as a
travesty caused Plaintiff substantial harms and losses to her professional reputation and
otherwise. At no time had Plaintiff ever been intentionally untruthful or dishonest in her
dealings with Defendants.
The Three Reviewers
60. On or about April 11, 2014, three outside reviewers, serving as agents of UNC-
CH, publically disputed Plaintiffs athlete literacy claims that were broadcasted nationally in
CNNs special report. The reviewers asserted that Plaintiff overstated how many athletes were
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 15 of 29
16

subpar readers, and used a test not recommended for determining reading ability at the grade
level.
61. On information and belief, UNC-CH used the agent reviewers to retaliate
against Plaintiff because of her having been truthful during her interview by Ms. Ganim at CNN
about the academic fraudulent system at UNC-CH for athletes in revenue sports. At no time did
any of the reviewers ever speak with Plaintiff to discuss her findings or otherwise obtain all of
the information that Plaintiff used to arrive at her research findings.
62. On information and belief, Defendants spent approximately $500,000.00 over a
24-month period to wage a public relations campaign against Plaintiff and against the truth of
what Plaintiff had asserted as it pertained to the improper, unethical, illegal, and corrupt
treatment and services that UNC-CH faculty and staff had been providing to UNC-CH student
athletes in the revenue sports.
63. On information and belief, UNC-CH arranged for and used the Reviewers as its
agents in an effort to disingenuously and unfairly malign the professional reputation of Plaintiff
in a misguided effort to protect what UNC-CH thought was its interests.
UNC-CHs Reprisal and Retaliation against Willingham
64. Around April 30, 2013, on information and belief, then Chancellor Holden Thorp
forwarded to his successor, Defendant Folt, a recording of a speech that Plaintiff had given to
members of a public interest group, the Drake Group, which detailed the academic fraud that
UNC-CH had been engaged in with its athletes in revenue sports, as alleged herein.
65. On information and belief, on or after April 30, 2013, Defendant Folt listened to
the speech given by Plaintiff to the Drake Group and then decided shortly after with Defendant
individuals to retaliate against Plaintiff for having continued to expose the academic fraud at
UNC-CH.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 16 of 29
17

66. On or after J une 30, 2013, UNC-CH through its managers informed Plaintiff that,
effective J uly 1, 2013, about the following changes:
A. That Plaintiff would receive a demotion in rank and title;
B. That Plaintiff would thereafter be required indefinitely to report to weekly
meetings with her supervisor (which were not required for other employees);
C. That Plaintiff would receive additional extensive job duties, which were
clerical in nature and not in areas related to her career path;
D. That the additional job duties not related to her career path would require
Plaintiff to receive extensive training over the summer (thus, requiring
Plaintiff to cancel immediately any summer vacation plans);
E. That Plaintiff would no longer be serving as an academic advisor to
undergraduate students, but would instead only be a graduation advisor for
senior year students (which is clerical work in nature and outside Plaintiffs
career path);
F. That Plaintiff was permitted thereon to see only senior year students for
advising. UNC-CHs supervisors directed Plaintiff to cease immediately
having any more contacts with students with whom Plaintiff had been serving
in the capacity of academic coach and had built a mentor-student relationship
for up to two years;
G. That Plaintiffs work hours would be strictly enforced during the afternoons
(which on information and belief was designed to and in fact did isolate
Plaintiff and prevent her from being able to attend the regular faculty meetings
and athletic reform group meetings, both of which took place during the
afternoons and were necessary for professional growth);
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 17 of 29
18

H. That Plaintiff would be required to provide written requests for all time off for
sick, vacation, and personal leave to her immediate supervisor (when other
employees in positions similar to Plaintiff would not be so required);
I. That Plaintiff must submit the written request for sick, vacation, and personal
leave to her supervisor at least 30 days prior to any need for sick, vacation,
and/or personal leave and that some of the requests would be denied;
J . That Plaintiff would be required immediately to split her existing office into
two offices located approximately mile from each other. UNC-CH directed
Plaintiff to move immediately her then existing office in the Student and
Academic Services building to an office in the basement of the Student and
Academic Services building with substantially poorer work conditions;
K. That for the weekday morning hours, Plaintiff would be required to work out
of her basement office in the Student and Academic Services building. But
during the weekday afternoon hours, Plaintiff would be required to work out
of UNC-CHs Steele building, an approximate mile walk from her
basement office; and
L. That when she used the office in the Steele building during the afternoons,
Plaintiff would be required to share this office with a retired professor even
though the office was only big enough for one person to use at a time (thus,
frequently placing Plaintiff in the awkward position of having to ask the
retired professor if he would not mind leaving the office so that she could use
the office during any given afternoon);
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 18 of 29
19

M. That Plaintiff would be required to work office hours for students at times
when faculty meetings were being conducted for purposes of excluding
Plaintiff from the same. (collectively adverse employment actions)
67. In light of the sanctions that Defendants issued Plaintiff effective J uly 1, 2013, as
alleged herein, each day those sanctions collectively rose to the level of being severe and
pervasive unwelcomed retaliatory treatment against Plaintiff for having engaged in the protected
activity, as alleged herein.
68. On and continuously after J uly 1, 2013, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by
providing her with a hostile work environment and purposefully failing or refusing to take
prompt and effective remedial action to eradicate Plaintiffs hostile work environment in
retaliation against Plaintiff.
69. In addition to that listed in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants created and
condoned a hostile work environment for Plaintiff in at least the following manner:
A. Taking the adverse employment actions, as alleged in paragraph 65, which are
incorporated herein by reference on a day-to-day basis;
B. When UNC-CHs provost, Defendants Dean and Folt, personally attacked
Plaintiffs character and called her a liar at a faculty meeting during
February 2014;
C. When UNC-CH would frequently submit false claims and accusations against
Plaintiff after J uly 1, 2013 that Plaintiff had been engaged in multiple
violations of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in an effort to
intimidate Plaintiff and to harass Plaintiff by requiring her immediately to
redo training pertaining to these statutes;
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 19 of 29
20

D. When UNC-CH would fail to or otherwise cause inordinate delay in handling

Plaintiffs complaints about her treatment, including the filing of a grievance
pursuant to UNC-CHs policies and procedures;
E. Various UNC-CH faculty and staff would remove and exclude Plaintiff from
group email lists for purposes of regular business communication;
F. Permitted and refused to remediate Plaintiffs hostile work environment in a
prompt and effective manner. (collectively adverse employment actions).
70. On a regular basis after J uly 1, 2013, Plaintiff submitted formal and informal
demands directly and through legal advocates to UNC and to UNC-CH regarding the retaliation
and hostile work conditions she was experiencing, but received no response from Defendants.
71. On March 6, 2014, Louis Clark, Esq., president of the Government Accountability
Project in Washington D.C., sent a letter on behalf of Plaintiff to Defendant Folt, the UNC
President, Thomas W. Ross, and the UNC Board of Governors Chair, Peter Hans, to detail and
complain about the retaliation and hostile work environment that Plaintiff faced in the
workplace on a regular basis. A true copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit A and is
incorporated herein by reference.
72. On information and belief, no one on behalf of UNC, UNC-CH, or otherwise to
Mr. Clarks letter dated March 6, 2014 or otherwise contacted Plaintiff regarding the same.
73. On May 6, 2014, Louis Clark, Esq. sent another letter on behalf of Plaintiff to
UNC President, Thomas W. Ross, the UNC Board of Governors Chair, Peter Hans and
Defendant Folt, to inform them that he had not received any response to his previous letter dated
March 6, 2014 and to reiterate the hostile work environment that Plaintiff had been experiencing
the workplace. A true copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by
reference.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 20 of 29
21

74. On information and belief, no one on behalf of UNC, UNC-CH or otherwise

responded to Mr. Clarks letter dated May 6, 2014 that complained about and detailed some of
the hostile work environment that Plaintiff was experiencing in the workplace.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
(42 U.S.C. 1983-Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights)
75. The foregoing allegations are hereby realleged and fully incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
76. As alleged herein, Plaintiff met with members of the media and others to report
truthfully and accurately her personal knowledge about the inappropriate, unethical, illegal, and
corrupt services that UNC-CH faculty and staff had been providing to some UNC-CH athletes,
particularly those in the revenue sports.
77. As alleged herein, during her meetings, Plaintiff informed the members of the
media and others about the academic fraud that some of UNC-CH faculty and staff had been
engaged in to inappropriately assist some UNC-CH athletes in revenue sports in an effort to
maintain academic eligibility for those athletes, particularly the ones who could not read or write
at the high school or lower levels. As alleged herein, Plaintiff informed the media and others
about the no show classes and paper classes that some UNC-CH faculty and staff directed
some UNC-CH athletes to take; how some UNC-CH faculty and staff guided some UNC-CH
athletes to major in subject areas that consisted of little to no academic accountability in an effort
to maintain those athletes eligibility in the revenue sports; and how tutors would purposefully
write papers for some of the UNC-CH athletes for purpose of having UNC-CH athletes
plagiarize the same for academic credit.
78. The acts and practices that Plaintiff informed the media, as alleged herein, were
designed by some UNC-CH faculty and staff as a way avoid the minimal grade standards for
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 21 of 29
22

some UNC-CH athletes who would not otherwise be able to maintain sufficient grades to
compete in the revenue sports. These acts and practices directly violated the NCAA regulations
pertaining to academic eligibility and, as a result, purposefully placed UNC-CH revenue sports at
an unfair advantage over other universities under the regulatory authority of the NCAA.
79. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff engaged in temperate speech with the media
on matters of public interest protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
80. At the time of Defendants actions, as alleged herein, it was clearly established
law that a state, including a state university and officials thereof, cannot retaliate against an
employee on a basis that infringes on that employees constitutionally protected interest in free
speech. Rankin v. McPherson, 443 U.S. 378, 383 (1987).
88. Plaintiff also authored various reports that she published to the public in her
personal blog that reported truthfully and accurately her personal knowledge about the
inappropriate, unethical, illegal, corrupt services that UNC-CH faculty and staff would provide
to UNC-CH athletes, particularly those in the revenue sports, as alleged herein.
89. When Plaintiff spoke publically and to members of the media about her athletic
academic concerns at UNC-CH, Plaintiff was speaking as a citizen upon matters of public
concern, as evident by the news coverage, inter alia.
90. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs interests in speaking upon the matters of
public concern, as alleged herein, outweighed Defendants interests in managing its working
environment.
91. On information and belief, Plaintiffs speaking as a citizen upon matters of public
concern, as alleged herein, was a substantial factor in Defendants decisions to retaliate against
Plaintiff as alleged herein in paragraphs 66 and 69, supra, which are incorporated herein by
reference.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 22 of 29
23

92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts of reprisal against Plaintiff,
as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred and sustained harms, losses and other damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of $10,000.00.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
(Whistleblower Claim Act ClaimN.C. Gen. Stat. 126-84, et seq)

93. The foregoing allegations are hereby realleged and fully incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
94. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff has been a State employee of the State of
North Carolina and subject to the protections and privileges contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-
84, et. seq.
95. On information and belief, UNC-CH engaged in violations of NCAA regulations
when it steered some UNC-CH athletes in revenue sports to paper classes (i.e. courses where
the grade was based only on one paper that was turned in by the athlete but was not necessarily
prepared by the athlete), no show classes (classes where enrolled athletes were never required
to attend) and promoted or condoned institutional plagiarism (UNC-CH tutors who wrote papers
for the athletes to turn in for a grade under the athletes names) in an effort to artificially boost
and/or maintain the grade point averages of some of the UNC-CH athletes (many of whom could
not read or write at the high school grade level) so that those athletes would be eligible to
compete in the revenue sports and placing UNC-CH at an unfair advantage with the sports
programs of other universities.
96. When UNC-CH engaged in or otherwise condoned the actions and omissions, as
alleged in the preceding paragraph, UNC-CH engaged in fraud as it pertains to the affected
scholarship athletes in revenue sports.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 23 of 29
24

97. Under the NCAA system, when an athlete accepts a scholarship from a
university in lieu of monetary payments, which NCAA forbids, the athlete is said to receive his
or her proper remuneration in the value of the genuine collegiate education that the athlete
receives at no cost under the terms of the scholarship. So when UNC-CH engaged in institutional
deception in an effort to maintain scholarship athletes eligibility to compete in revenue sports
for UNC-CHs financial benefits, which were substantial, UNC-CH is in effective committing a
fraud against the scholarship athlete who, as a result, does not receive a genuine collegiate
education.
98. On information and belief, Defendants acts and omissions, as alleged herein,
constituted a misappropriation of state resources and constituted gross mismanagement and
waste of monies in addition to a gross abuse of authority.
99. N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-118.2 makes it a crime for any person, firm, corporation, or
association to assist any student or attempt to assist any student in obtaining or in attempting to
obtain, by fraudulent means, any academic credit, grade, test score, or any diploma, certificate or
other instrument purporting to confer any literary, scientific, professional, technical or other
degree in any course of study in any university or college.
100. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under N.C.
Gen. Stat. 126-84, et seq. when she reported to Defendants and the agents of Defendants (i.e.
university counsel, Mr. Martin, etc.) the no show classes, paper courses, institutional
plagiarism, violations of NCAA regulations and fraud, and other criminal violations of N.C. Gen.
Stat. 14-118.2, as alleged herein.
101. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under N.C.
Gen. Stat. 126-84, et seq., when she reported to Defendants and the agents of Defendants (i.e.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 24 of 29
25

university counsel, Mr. Martin, etc.) the no show classes, paper courses, institutional
plagiarism, violations of NCAA regulations, and fraud, as alleged herein.
102. On information and belief, Defendants discriminated and retaliated against
Plaintiff because Plaintiff engaged in good faith in the protected activity, as alleged herein,
Defendants acted as alleged in paragraphs 66 and 69, supra, which are incorporated herein by
reference.
103. Defendants essentially punished Plaintiff for having reported the truth, as alleged
herein, which truth was protected by N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-84.
104. Defendants constructively terminated Plaintiffs employment by taking the adverse
employment actions against Plaintiff and creating and facilitating a hostile work environment
against Plaintiff through severe and pervasive work conditions that it imposed or permitted to be
imposed on Plaintiff on a daily basis from J uly 1, 2014 to May 2, 2014 when Plaintiff resigned
because of the same.
105. The adverse employment actions that Defendants took against Plaintiff
discriminated against the compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of Plaintiffs
employment at UNC-CH.
106. On May 2, 2014, Plaintiff submitted her notice of resignation to her supervisor,
Harold Woodard, because of the hostile work environment and Defendants refusal to remediate
the same. A true copy of her resignation notice explaining the reasons is attached hereto as
Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by reference.
107. Defendants alleged reasons for taking the adverse employment actions against
Plaintiff were specious and served merely as a pretext to retaliate against Plaintiff because she
had been engaging in the protected activity.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 25 of 29
26

108. Even if Defendants had valid or legitimate reasons for taking adverse action
against Plaintiff, which is denied, Defendants retaliatory animus was a substantial causative
factor for the adverse action that was taken against Plaintiff.
109. On information and belief, Defendants violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-85
were willful and unjustified.
110. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discrimination and retaliation
against Plaintiff, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred harms and losses in an amount to be
proven at trial, but in excess of $10,000.00.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Defamation)

111. The foregoing allegations are hereby realleged and fully incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
112. On or about J anuary 17, 2014, Defendant Dean and Defendant Folt falsely
informed the attending members of the UNC-CH Faculty Council that Plaintiffs research into
UNC-CHs athlete literacy, as reported by CNN, was so flawed that it had no merit.
113. During the Faculty Council meeting on J anuary 17, 2014, Defendant Dean and
Defendant Folt informed various faculty members at UNC-CH that Plaintiff was a liar for
having shared her personal research with CNN and others.
114. At no time was Plaintiff ever intentionally untruthful or dishonest in her
disclosures to CNN or others concerning the inappropriate, unethical, or corrupt acts of UNC-
CH, as alleged herein. Defendant Dean and Defendant Folts assertion to Plaintiff as being a
liar in what she communicated to CNN is false.
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 26 of 29
27

115. At the time that Defendant Dean and Defendant Folt referred to Plaintiff as a
liar to the UNC-CH Faculty Council, both Dean and Folt knew that the statement was false or
otherwise failed to exercise ordinary care to determine whether the statement was false.
116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Dean and Folts referring
publically and to UNC-CH faculty as a liar, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred harms and
losses in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of $10,000.00.
DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) and 42 U.S.C. 1981a(c), Plaintiff hereby makes
demand for a trial by jury on all triable issues.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays unto the Court as follows:

1. That the Court issue a permanent injunction against Defendants jointly and
severally in favor of Plaintiff as follows:
A. That Defendants be required to reinstate Plaintiff to her employment with
Defendants; or alternatively at her election, that Plaintiff receive front pay
from Defendants; and
B. That Defendants, and their agents, managers, and employees be enjoined from
any further acts of discrimination or retaliation against Plaintiff;
2. That Plaintiff have and recover of Defendants, individually, jointly and severally,
the amount of all compensatory harms, losses, and damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, but in excess of $10,000.00, plus interest;
3. That Plaintiff recover from Defendants all court costs, including expert witness
fees, deposition costs, and attorneys fees, as permitted by law;
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 27 of 29
28

4. That Plaintiffs compensatory harms, losses, and damages be trebled pursuant to

N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-87;
5. That Plaintiff receive a jury trial as to all matters so triable;
6. That the Court grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
This the 10
th
day of October, 2014.

/s/ J . Heydt Philbeck
/s/ Philip A. Collins

J . Heydt Philbeck, Atty.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: (919) 828-0731
Facsimile: (919) 828-6592
Email: hphilbeck@bdixon.com
N.C. State Bar #19379

Philip A. Collins, Atty.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: (919) 828-0731
Facsimile: (919) 828-6592
Email: hphilbeck@bdixon.com
N.C. State Bar #29153

Attorneys for Plaintiff




Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 28 of 29
29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Civil Action No: 14-cv-432

MARY C. WILLINGHAM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH )
CAROLINA AT CHAPEL )
HILL, et. al, )
)
Defendants. )

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on this date, a copy of the foregoing:
AMENDED COMPLAINT was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court for the EDNC using
the CM/ECF system, which should send notification of such filing to the counsel for the parties
listed below, who are believed to be CM/ECF participants.
This the 10
th
day of October, 2014.

BAILEY & DIXON, LLP

By: /s/ J . Heydt Philbeck
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: (919) 828-0731
Email: hphilbeck@bdixon.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SERVED ON:
Kimberly D. Potter, Esq.
Stephanie A. Brennan, Esq.
Special Deputy Attorney Generals
N.C. Department of J ustice
Posti Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
kpotter@ncdoj.gov
sbrennan@ncdoj.gov

Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 29 of 29

Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 5 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 6 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 7 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-2 Filed 10/10/14 Page 8 of 8
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-3 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-3 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-3 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-3 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 6
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-3 Filed 10/10/14 Page 5 of 6
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-3 Filed 10/10/14 Page 6 of 6
Case 5:14-cv-00432-BO Document 19-4 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 1