In the days following the hearing, the Belmont administration
directed its attention to the complaint brought against it in
the County Superior Court. On its behalf, attorney Simon Murrain
began the usual returns from the baseline destined to increase costs,
delay judgment and frustrate justice.
The analogy to tennis is not farfetched. One side, the plaintiff
via her attorney, Al Garret, serves. A volley of paper ensues
from both sides directed at each other, but under the supervision
and rule of the official, a judge.
Where the analogy loses ground is that very little action occurs
in the court. Sure, the plaintiff and respondent and the lawyers must
show up for hearings, but most everything goes on in the judges' chambers.
Simon Murrain had a great deal of practice in delaying tactics.
Over the last four years, seven people had brought suit against Belmont
for sex discrimination. All seven had been forced to withdraw
as their cases dragged on and on and their resources dwindled.
Simon's initial move this time was to have the case go to a higher court,
in this instance the United States District Court.
This move placed two additional burdens on the plaintiff and her attorney.
First, the cost of the proceedings was greater than at the district level
and second, the travel distance to attend hearings increased fifty-fold.
An advantage was also inadvertently given. The judge who was appointed
to sit at this session was known for his fairness and knowledge of the law.
Al Garret immediately filed an amended complaint to the federal court
which could rule on federal laws as well as state. In it, he listed
six charges against Belmont University: 1. Violation of due process;
2. violation of constitutional law; 3. violation of the state
administrative procedures act; 4. violation of the state
open meeting law; 5. violation of the state access to public records
and 6. violation of the fair employment practices act.
With the listing of these charges, he asked that the court issue
a restraining order, an injunction that would order the respondent,
Belmont University, to grant the plaintiff her right to a fair
and impartial hearing by the university and access to the documents
that had been withheld from her.
It was at this time, shortly after the final university hearing had ended,
that Diana began getting threatening phone calls. She was told to drop
the court proceedings if she didn't want something really bad to happen to her.
After the initial hearing on the complaint and before any decision
was handed down by the judge, Murrain filed a motion for summary judgment
on counts three, four, five and six--all of the counts related to state law.
In effect, he was asking the judge to throw out the four charges for lack
of validity.
His motion caused a veritable flurry of other motions from both sides
and effectively delayed the process of law by dividing the charges.
It also increased the cost to the plaintiff. It was a gamble for
the university. If it paid off, it would cut the charges down to two--
both federal, while disposing of all the others. If it didn't?
No problem, there were always appeals to be made that could
continue the process indefinitely.
At the hearing on these motions, Al Garret limited his argument to
a synopsis of his brief. He carefully related the applicable laws
and requested that the defendant, Belmont University, be ordered
to grant a fair, open hearing to the plaintiff, Diana. Also,
that the plaintiff be supplied with the student feedback evaluations
she had requested and that had been denied to her.
Al was an intelligent work-horse of an attorney. At 57, he took
his legal duties seriously. His heavy glasses with their
thick rims gave him a scholastic air. All that was needed
to complete the image of absent minded professor was a pipe.
He had diligently searched the literature for precedents
which he presented to the judge in a mild but measured tone.
A reasonable man, he projected this image to the court and made
a fine presentation. No sparkle, just facts and precedents
clearly presented.
When the judge turned his attention to the respondent, Simon
Murrain stood to address the court looking more like a walking
advertisement for expensive men's wear than an attorney.
Simon oozed charm with all the proficiency of a hangman leading
the way to the gallows. Close to Al in age, Simon was of a
different bent. His argument was presented with show and words--
it worked well with juries who tended to watch him instead of what
he said. Today, there was no jury present, but his modus operandi
didn't change.
"Your honor," he commenced. "The plaintiff was given a fair hearing
under the rules of Belmont University. She was given due process.
Despite the fact that she forged many evaluation forms causing untold
harm to two young faculty persons, the university made every effort
to treat her with fairness and consideration." He continued for some
time in the same vein, constantly and consistently referring to
the plaintiff as a forger--a criminal.
Gleefully, Murrain reflected, in court, we attorneys can say anything,
or most anything, we want to. We do not have to operate under the
constraints imposed on the rest of the populace and preface a charge
with the word alleged. Truth is not required of us either,
although most judges attempt to keep the elocution within
the bounds of propriety.
Another check in the system is the presence of the opposing
attorney who is supposed to function to limit any freewheeling
antics of his colleague by appealing to the judge.
But Al did not object to Simon's presentation. He felt confident
that the judge would rule on the law, not on the performance.
Besides, he rather enjoyed watching and listening to Simon's kind of theater.
Following the hearing, the wait began. How would the judge decide?
When would the judge decide?
Even though the hearing committee at Belmont had made its
report and recommendation to terminate, the actual termination
letter had not yet been sent. From the time she was accused,
Diana had found life at work to be difficult. As a plaintiff,
in a lawsuit against Belmont, it was nearly impossible.
Nearly, that is, because her students never wavered in their efforts
to encourage and help her. It was during this wait that factual
information was obtained concerning a dean at Belmont who had falsified
a faculty promotion sheet. The occurrence had been rumored,
but now the players were known. Al Garret had talked to the
principals of the event and obtained two affidavits attesting
to the misconduct and subsequent lack of punishment awarded
the dean who was still employed at the university.
The man had suffered no loss of rank or pay for his transgression.
These affidavits were added to the pile of papers already on file
with the judge.
Early in June, the Opinion and Order of the judge arrived.
Al Garret's third charge had been thrown out by the judge
who wrote that the law cited did not apply to Belmont University.
The other three charges were sustained.
On charge number four, relating to the open meeting law,
the judge wrote in part: "To permit this hearing panel to operate
outside the Open Meeting Law would be to enable the university
to take round-about steps to avoid its public duty."
He continued by describing the hearing panel as resembling,
". . .the type of secret activities the Open Meeting Law seeks
to prevent. . ." and suggested that if the panel had considered
any area to be extremely sensitive, it could have gone into
executive session. Even this he qualified--asserting that
it was subject to the plaintiff's right to a public hearing.
As to the public record law, charge number five, he ruled that
the plaintiff should have access to the evaluations requested.
"The Court finds," he wrote, "that Belmont must comply with
the Public Records Law."
Finally, on charge number six, relating to the fair employment law,
the judge found the evidence submitted to be sufficient to indicate
retaliatory, sexual discrimination.
A few days later, with this Opinion and Order from the court in hand,
John T. Pope, president of Belmont University, terminated the plaintiff,
effective immediately.
The Pope's action was expected by everyone except Al Garret,
Diana's attorney--he still thought he'd won the case.
Belmont had been thumbing its nose at the judicial system
as long as anyone could remember.
Diana Trenchant packed up the teaching and research accumulations
of nearly twenty-five years and left for home.
Neither the president nor any of the Vees could be reached for comment.
However, Bob Alastar, the PR for Belmont, called in the press.
"We have no comment," he asserted. "It is the university's policy
not to discuss personnel decisions with the press."
Now there was a new angle in the threatening phone calls to
the plaintiff. The caller would start out in a friendly fashion.
In a conversational tone, he would advise Diana to, "go down to
the courthouse and examine the court records for the past ten years.
Just check the directory for all the cases that Belmont has been
involved in and read the outcome. The court clerk will help you."
Then the voice would become threatening. "You will see that no one
has ever won a case against Belmont. It owns the courts and it
owns the lawyers. You'll lose all your money and you'll be hurt
in other ways. It can and will make appeal after appeal.
It can and will tie this case up for years. Give it up
before you get hurt."