|Read a Post for Stotter v. University of Texas at San Antonio: How a Minor Dispute About a Professorís Office and Laboratory Became a Federal Lawsuit|
|Reply to this Post|
Re: Re: Pro-Administration Bias in Stotter v. University of Texas at San Antonio Article
|Posted By: Regina Criswell on July 26, 2008|
I'm the attorney for Dr. Stotter. I haven't read the article about the Stotter case, but I have read the comments. Of course the case is about much more than storing personal property in his office and lab, but you may already be aware of that. The real issue and the only remaining issue is what was owned by the University and what was owned by Dr. Stotter with respect to his research materials. The University had taken the position all along that he didn't own any thing, and the trial court originally agreed. The case went to the Court of Appeals in New Orleans and they disagreed, finding a fact issue regarding whether Dr. Stotter owned any material removed from his lab. The office was not relevant for this purpose. as all material he claimed ownership of in his office was returned. The case is currently set for trial in December, but a really interesting development occurred after the case was remanded back to the trial court. After the case has been pending almost 7 years, and despite the University's position that he didn't own anything, earlier this year the attorneys for the University returned three boxes of research materials, including over 200 containers (vials, etc) of chemicals. in boxes labeled "Stotter's research material." The issue of ownership will largely turn on the University's intellectual property policies. It should be an interesting trial given the return of "his property."
You may also be interested to know, if you don't already, that Dr. Stotter was terminated despite a unanimous recommendation by a grievance committee that there was no good cause to terminate. Another professor at UTSA was just recently terminated by the Board of Regents despite another recommendation by a grievance committee that there was no good cause. So much for the safeguards of TENURE.