JI'RY VERDTCT
Ouestion No. I
Has Dr. Wigginton proved that, but for his age, the defendant University of Mississippi would not have denied
his application for tenure and promotion and subsequently terminated his employment?
Yes- ur-y'
Ouestion No, 2
Did Defendant Lambert deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application
for tenure and promotion?
Y", \r/ No
Case: 3:15-cv-00093-NBB Doc #: 144 Filed: 10/31/17 2 of 3 PageID #: 2512
Question \o. 3
Did Defendant Burton deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application
for tenure and promotion?
Yes ! No
uestion o
Did Defendant Kiss deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application for
tenure and promotion?
V", ( No
Ouestion No. 5
Did Defendant Stocks deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application
for ?
Ye
Ouestion No. 6
Did Defendant Jones deprive Dr. Wigginton ofhis due process rights during his consideration ofhis application for
tenure and o romotion?
Y", a/ No
If you have answered "No" to a// ofthe above, please stop and inform the Court.
Ifyou have answered "Y es" to any of the above, please continue filling out this form.
Case: 3:15-cv-00093-NBB Doc #: 144 Filed: 10/31/17 3 of 3 PageID #: 2513
Ouestion No. 7
Did Dr. Wigginton suffer damages as a result ofDefendant's deprivation of his due process rights?
Yes _{_ No
Ouestion No, 8
What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Dr. Wigginton for the
damages, ifany, you have found Defendant's wrongful conduct, ifany, caused Dr. Wigginton?
Answer in dollars and cents lor the following items, and no others:
2. Past pain and sufferin!, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss ofenjoyment of life.
r'so
-Z-
S 0
3. Future pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss ofenjoyment of life
oo-
$ r00
("v
Foreperson
\0-91-11
Date
Case: 3:15-cv-00093-NBB Doc #: 133 Filed: 10/18/17 1 of 13 PageID #: 1683
V. CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3:15-CV-093-NBB-RP
PRETRIAL ORDER
1. A pretrial conference was held on September 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States
Courthouse in Oxford, Mississippi before United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy
Plaintiffs case arises under the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. section 621, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. section
1981a. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343.
Moreover, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under
28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).
8. The parties accept the following concise summaries of the ultimate facts as claimed by:
a. Plaintiff:
b. Defendant:
(2) Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was denied, and he was
issued a one-year terminal contract in 2014. His employment with the
University ended in 2015.
(2) Whether the denial of Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was
unlawfully discriminatory;
(4) Whether the denial of Plaintiffs application for tenure and promotion was
arbitrary and capricious;
(7) Whether Defendants basis for denying Plaintiffs application for tenure and
promotion was pretext for their unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex,
race, color, gender, and age;
(3) Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs age discrimination and
state law claims.
(4) Whether Plaintiff may obtain injunctive relief related to his denial of
tenure without having named the Universitys current Chancellor or the
members of the IHL Board as parties.
10. The following is a list and brief description of all exhibits (except exhibits to be used for
impeachment purposes only) to be offered in evidence by the parties. Each exhibit has
been marked for identification and examined by counsel.
P-56 Defendant Lambert August 21, 2013 E-Mail Approving External Review
Board
P-57 October 2, 2013 E-mails Regarding Tenure and Promotion Binder
P-58 December 2, 2013 E-mail Regarding Refusal to Release Tenure Dossier
P-59 April 1, 2014 E-mail Regarding Faculty Disputes
P-60 October 2015 Correspondence Regarding Selection of Professor to Replace
Plaintiff
P-61 November 4, 2015 E-mail Regarding Defendant Burtons Selection of
Faculty to Replace Plaintiff
P-62 Description of Thomas Crowe Outstanding Faculty Award
P-63 Department Chair Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application
of Professor Jensen
P-64 Dean Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of Professor
Jensen
P-65 Defendant Kiss Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of
Professor Jensen
P-66 Department Chair Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application
of Professor Keena
P-67 Dean Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of Professor
Keena
P-68 Defendant Kiss Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of
Professor Keena
P-69 Department Chair Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application
of Professor Mongue
P-70 Dean Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of Professor
Mongue
P-71 Defendant Kiss Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Application of
Professor Mongue
P-72 IHL Policies and Bylaws
P-73 Tenure and Promotion Review Committee Checklists
11. The following is a list and brief description of charts, graphs, models, schematic diagrams,
and similar objects which will be used in opening statements or closing arguments, but
which will not be offered in evidence:
If any other objects are to be used by any party, such objects will be submitted to opposing
counsel at least three business days before trial. If there is then any objection to use of the
objects, the dispute will be submitted to the court at least one business day before trial.
12. The following is a list of witnesses the parties anticipate calling LIVE at trial (excluding
witnesses to be used solely for rebuttal or impeachment). All listed witnesses must be
present to testify when called by a party unless specific arrangements have been made with
the trial judge before commencement of trial. The listing of a Will Call witness constitutes
a professional representation, upon which opposing counsel may rely, that the witness will
be present at trial, absent reasonable written notice to counsel to the contrary. If testimony
is to be offered via deposition, state whether the entire deposition, or only portions, will be
Case: 3:15-cv-00093-NBB Doc #: 133 Filed: 10/18/17 11 of 13 PageID #: 1693
used. Counsel must confer, no later than twenty-one days before the commencement of
trial, to resolve all controversies concerning all depositions (electronically recorded or
otherwise). All controversies not resolved by the parties must be submitted to the trial
judge not later than fourteen days before trial. All objections not submitted within that
time are waived.
a. By Plaintiff:
[F]act/
Will/ [E]xpert
May [L]iability/
Name Call [D]amages City/State
b. By Defendants
[F]act/
Will/ [E]xpert
May [L]iability/
Name Call [D]amages City/State
14. Counsel suggests the following additional matters to aid in the disposition of this civil
action: None.
16. As stated in paragraph 1, this pretrial order has been formulated (a) at a pretrial conference
before a judicial officer, notice of which was duly served on all parties, and at which the
parties attended as stated above, or (b) the final pretrial conference having been dispensed
with by the judicial officer, as a result of conferences between the parties. Reasonable
opportunity has been afforded for corrections or additions prior to signing. This order will
control the course of the trial, as provided by Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Case: 3:15-cv-00093-NBB Doc #: 133 Filed: 10/18/17 13 of 13 PageID #: 1695
and it may not be amended except by consent of the parties and the court, or by order of
the court to prevent manifest injustice.
Entry of the preceding Pretrial Order is recommended by me on this, the 17th day of
October, 2017.