FILED

2/28/2023 5:55 PM
Avrey Anderson
23-0448 District Clerk
Hays County, Texas
CAUSE NO. _____________________

DR. JENNIFER LAMM, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§
Plaintiff §
§ ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
-v- §
§
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, § HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES Plaintiff Dr. Lamm and files Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and

Jury Demand.

I
DISCOVERY PLAN

1. Plaintiff intends that this suit be governed by discovery control level two.

2. Plaintiff affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the expedited

actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Plaintiff seeks

relief over $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000.00.

3. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $250,000 but not more than

$1,000,000.00.

II
PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Dr. Lamm is an individual who resides in Travis County, Texas.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 1
5. Defendant, Texas State University (Texas State or TXST) is a state university

that may be served through its President, Kelly Damphouse, at 601 University

Drive, J.C. Kellam, 10th floor, San Marcos, TX 78666.

III
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Jurisdiction is appropriate because TXST is a state university and the acts

giving rise to this petition occurred in the State of Texas. Eleventh

Amendment sovereign immunity has been waived for Equal Pay Act claims.

See Siler-Khodr v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. San Antonio, 261 F.3d 542,

549-51 (5th Cir. 2001). Sovereign immunity has been waived for claims under

Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.. Tex. Lab. Code §21.002(8)(D)..

7. Venue is appropriate because the acts giving rise to this lawsuit occurred

within Hays County, Texas.

IV
FACTS

8. Dr. Jennifer Lamm is a veteran with a VA disability rating for a service-

connected disability, which she reported along with her veteran’s employment

preference status on page 1 of her employee data form in 2016.

9. She first started working for Texas State in 2016 as a lecturer in the Political

Sciences Department.

10. The offer of employment from Provost Gene Bourgeois to Dr. Lamm generally

stated:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 2
11. Nothing in the original offer stated that Dr. Lamm’s position as Lecturer was

on temporary funding, that she was not eligible for merit increases, or that she

was ineligible for promotion to the position of Senior Lecturer.

12. In fact, prior to the events detailed below, Dr. Lamm had every intention of

advancing and working for Texas State through the time of her retirement.

13. For the duration of her employment, Dr. Lamm always gave her best efforts.

14. Dr. Lamm had no disciplinary history and met all responsibilities asked of her

at Texas State.

15. Unfortunately, Dr. Lamm has been subjected to unequal pay and sex

discrimination.

16. In 2019, Dr. Lamm was denied merit pay even though every other full time

faculty member received merit pay, including a male lecturer named Blake

Farrar and at least one male faculty member who faced disciplinary action the

year prior.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 3
17. From 2019 through 2022, Department Chair Dr. Kenneth Grasso told Dr.

Lamm the reason she was denied a pay raise, i.e., receiving differential

treatment, was because she was paid through temporary funding and that only

those on permanent funding were eligible for such increases.

18. That stated reason was false for several reasons.

19. First, no such rule or policy existed. Under University Policy and Procedure

AA/PPS No. 4.01.50 (7.10), “[a]ll continuing percent-contract faculty are

eligible for merit raises.” Dr. Lamm had such a contract. Therefore, under

University Policy, she was eligible for a merit raise in 2019.

20. Similarly, the Department’s merit policy made no distinctions between faculty

regarding different types of funding.

21. For such a policy to be a valid factor, it must be communicated to the faculty

as well as be systematically and objectively applied.

22. The only person who stated that such a policy existed was Dr. Grasso. No one

else had heard of this alleged policy, and, to date, no specific policy document

has ever been produced showing such a policy existed.

23. Second, even if the policy did exist, Dr. Grasso admitted to Texas State officials

that a male lecturer, on temporary money, received merit pay in 2019.

Specifically, this male lecturer was Blake Farrar. Therefore, if a policy did

exist, it appears it was only applied to female lecturers or at least is not

systematically applied.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 4
24. Unequal raises and even consideration for raises are not the only form of sex

discrimination Dr. Lamm experienced.

25. Dr. Lamm was not considered for promotion to Senior Lecturer despite meeting

all of the qualifications from 2016 until finally considered in 2022. Further,

Dr. Lamm is a veteran.

26. In fact, men with less experience were promoted to Senior Lecturer before Dr.

Lamm. Other men were recommended for promotion to Senior Lecturer at the

same time as Dr. Lamm despite having less experience than her.

27. Dr. Lamm raised this issue with Dr. Grasso and Dean Mary Brennan in the

summer of 2019.

28. In July 2019, Dr. Lamm notified Dean Brennan that the Department of

Political Science was unable to produce her personnel file upon written

request. When Dr. Lamm learned she was excluded from merit pay, passed

over for promotion, and that graduate student support for the Discourse in

Democracy program was reduced, she asked the Dean to intervene. Dean

Brennan directed Dr. Lamm to clarify the terms of her new role with Dr.

Grasso. Dean Brennan took responsibility and assured Dr. Lamm she would

watch the situation closely.

29. However, the school withdrew and cut support for the program.

30. Moreover, as the Director of the Discourse in Democracy program, Dr. Lamm

received a course release, which allowed her to teach less courses. In April

2020, Dr. Grasso removed the course release.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 5
31. In 2021, Dean Mary Brennan recommended Dr. Lamm for promotion.

32. Dr. Grasso rejected the recommendation.

33. According to Dr. Grasso, there was yet another policy that lecturers on

temporary funding could not be promoted.

34. Again, there was no evidence of this policy outside of Dr. Grasso’s words. To

date, there is still no such evidence.

35. Even Dean Brennan did not appear to have knowledge of such a policy or to

have ever heard of it prior to Dr. Grasso saying it existed when denying Dr.

Lamm’s promotion.

36. Even if that policy existed, Dr. Lamm should have been promoted earlier

because Dr. Grasso informed her on August 23, 2018 that she “would be placed

on permanent money after Don [Inbody] leaves,” beginning in August 2019.

Therefore, she was eligible for promotion even if there was such a policy.

37. In order to continue to deny Dr. Lamm a promotion, Dr. Grasso added another

non-existent requirement to this non-existent policy, stating, “Our PC

[Personnel Committee that approves promotions] normally scrutinizes these

requests carefully and has sometimes preferred that candidates be on

permanent money for several years before being promoted.”

38. In other words, Dr. Grasso was claiming that he did not recommend promoting

Dr. Lamm because of a “sometimes prefer[ence]” of the Personnel Committee.

39. However, Dr. Grasso did not have such qualms when recommending men for

promotion.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 6
40. In fact, in February 2021, Dr. Grasso told Dr. Lamm that she would be

promoted next fall—at the same time as a male colleague two years her junior.

41. But even that turned out to be false. As Dr. Grasso later admitted in an email,

he decided against recommending Dr. Lamm for promotion because of the

“stress and fatigue we were all experiencing” during the pandemic.

42. Dr. Lamm was not given the same opportunities for additional compensation

as was given to her male colleagues. For example, she was not allowed to

supervise theses at the request of students, a benefit allowed to male

colleagues.

43. Further, Dr. Lamm’s junior male colleagues have been preferred in the

distribution of teaching assignments. This was especially acute in summer

teaching appointments, over which the Chair exercises total discretion and

include extra compensation. For example, the male lecturer who also joined

the department in August 2016, was assigned to teach a senior seminar in his

first year. This male lecturer was immediately assigned summer courses (in

2017) whereas Dr. Lamm was not offered summer teaching until 2019. Dr.

Lamm has never been allowed to teach the senior seminar, graduate courses,

or been permitted to supervise student theses.

44. The discrimination has worsened and become more egregious over time. In the

summer of 2022, Dr. Lamm asked to teach the introductory majors-only course

left vacant due to a faculty departure. From fall 2019 to spring 2022, PS 2304

was exclusively taught by the male lecturer Dr. V. In fact, in fall 2021, Dr. V.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 7
 taught exclusively honors and senior seminars, and majors only courses

whereas Dr. Lamm was not given the opportunity to teach one.

45. Dr. Grasso told Dr. Lamm she could not teach the majors intro course because

he had hired his former TA to teach these prized courses on a per course basis.

Dr. Lamm pointed out that she had identical qualifications to the previous

instructor. Dr. Grasso said he would assign Dr. Lamm in the future but in the

draft schedule for spring 2023 that he circulated on 6/29/2022, the former TA

is again assigned both sections.

46. On April 9, 2021, Dr. Lamm asked Dean Brennan for assistance. In that letter

Dr. Lamm made clear that she was concerned about retrospective and

prospective treatment. She communicated that “I am interested in applying to

the work release program for non-tenure line faculty” but saw Dr. Grasso’s

disposition towards her as a potential barrier to accessing this employment

benefit.

47. Dr. Lamm informed Dean Brennan that Dr. Grasso refused to accommodate

reasonable requests, erecting barriers to her professional development.

48. On July 5, 2021, Dean Mary Brennan told Dr. Lamm that she would support

Dr. Lamm’s immediate promotion.

49. A few days later, Dr. Grasso admitted to postponing Dr. Lamm’s promotion,

allegedly because of the pandemic.

50. On August 1, 2021, Dr. Lamm filed a complaint of sex discrimination with the

Texas State’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) regarding the above.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 8
51. Again, mediation was suggested. Dr. Grasso rejected mediation.

52. On September 20, 2021, Dr. Lamm reported the sex discrimination to Texas

State’s general counsel, Nelly Herrera, through a letter from her attorney.

53. The Political Science department has a known sexism problem at Texas State

University. Several female students have complained about aggressive and

bullying behavior from male professors. In fact, there have been at least three

complaints from the student group Supporting Women in Political Science

about male professors showing up at meetings and acting aggressively towards

female students.

54. Over a year after Dr. Lamm’s complaint was filed, the OEO issued its report.

55. According to one of the interviews conducted during Texas State’s internal

investigation, Dr. Lamm “was discriminated against and treated unfairly.”

The witness, who is listed only as Dr. C, also stated that Dr. Grasso does not

interact with Dr. Lamm the same way he does with Dr. C and other faculty.

Dr. C also stated that Dr. Grasso does not provide the same support to Dr.

Lamm that male faculty receive.

56. The OEO did not provide any evidence beyond Dr. Grasso’s self-serving

statements that any policies regarding temporary funding being tied to merit

increases or promotion actually existed.

57. On July 1, 2022, Dr. Lamm reported the discrimination and retaliation to the

new president of the University.

58. Nothing happened and nothing changed in fall 2022.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 9
59. Dr. Grasso has forced out other faculty by violating university policy.

60. Another faculty member left in December 2021 because Dr. Grasso refused to

follow university policy.

61. In another case, he improperly influenced a search for an Assistant Professor

of Constitutional Law by publicly stating his preference for one candidate while

conducting negotiations with two external candidates.

62. Dr. Grasso has also engaged in ethically questionable practices. For example,

there is a royalty-sharing agreement with McGraw-Hill. This agreement

harms the students, faculty, program, and institution. It is out of step with

trends in higher education, trends in Texas public education (60x30TX), and

the considered opinions of the American Political Science Association and the

Association of American University Professors.

63. The agreement forces students to purchase textbooks and materials so that the

Department gets a royalty. All students in the government core courses, POSI

2310 and 2320, are required to purchase a specific e-book by the Associate

Chair of the department. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008

requires institutions to “unbundle” supplementary materials, i.e. online

quizzes, from required textbooks.

64. Following the Department’s refusal to address widespread cheating in the core,

Dr. Lamm asked to teach the core without the problematic online component,

in much the same way that a former professor did when she taught honors and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 10
 regular sections of the core. Dr. Lamm suggested Dr. Grasso consult this

former colleague about the textbook question. He refused.

65. While some universities permit these royalty-sharing agreements with the

approval of the faculty, the PS faculty opposed the adoption of the Associate

Chair’s “custom e-book” and never took a vote.

66. The tenured faculty refused to assign the Associate Chair’s text. So, the full

time Non-Tenured Line and per-course faculty were used to staff these core

courses and assign the book.

67. Moreover, the mandatory use of the Associate Chair’s book led to mass

cheating by students in February 2022.

68. The faculty-authored textbook was ostensibly introduced to raise academic

standards however the program was so poorly managed that the “fix” created

more problems than it solved. In fact, it made it much easier for students to

cheat, since the test bank was not regularly revised—nor revised after several

hundred students in the Associate Chair’s section courses circulated the test

bank to each other in anticipation of the fall 2022 term.

69. In April 2022, Dr. Lamm emailed the core faculty about the need to address

this cheating incident and develop a plan for fall 2022. The Associate Chair

accused Dr. Lamm of not helping.

70. That same month in 2022, Dr. Lamm also notified the Dean of the College.

Nothing happened.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 11
71. When the Associate Chair sent out the course content for the fall 2022

semester, Dr. Lamm realized that nothing had changed. She asked Dr. Grasso

to assign her to different courses because she did not want to teach courses

where students were able to so easily cheat. Dr. Grasso refused the request.

72. Further under Dr. Grasso, the department-imposed requirement prevents

innovation and healthy competition. For example, faculty were prevented from

applying for grants through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

in 2020 and 2021 and the internal grants for Open Educational Resources

(OER) conversion in 2022.

73. Based on all of the above, Dr. Grasso and Texas State had made it clear that

Dr. Lamm was not wanted at the University, had made up policies to prevent

Dr. Lamm from advancing in her career, retaliated against her, and dismissed

her ethical concerns.

74. This left Dr. Lamm no choice, but to resign her position in order to move

forward in her career. Therefore, on August 11, 2022, Dr. Lamm submitted

her resignation.

75. Dr. Lamm dual filed her charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission and the Texas Workforce Commission on October 11,

2021.

76. Dr. Lamm became entitled to a Right to Sue from the Texas Workforce

Commission 180 days after that.

77. Dr. Lamm received her EEOC Right to Sue on September 6, 2022.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 12
78. All conditions precedent have been met.

IV
EQUAL PAY ACT VIOLATIONS

79. Plaintiff incorporates all of the above paragraphs as if restated herein.

80. Defendant TXST is subject to the Equal Pay Act.

81. Dr. Lamm performed work in a position requiring skill, effort, and

responsibility similar to that of her male counterparts.

82. Dr. Lamm was paid less than her male counterparts that were working under

substantially equal jobs requiring similar skills, effort, and responsibility as

her position.

83. Because of the actions of Defendant, Dr. Lamm has suffered damages.

84. TXST has violated the Equal Pay Act.

V
TCHRA SEX DISCRIMINATION

85. Plaintiff incorporates all of the above paragraphs as if restated herein.

86. Plaintiff is an employee within the meaning of the Texas Labor Code.

87. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Texas Labor Code.

88. Defendant paid Dr. Lamm less than similarly situated male employees.

89. Dr. Lamm was paid less because of her sex.

90. As detailed above, TXST has discriminated against Dr. Lamm because of her

sex by, among other things, not promoting her, providing less opportunities

and benefits, preventing her advancement, and constructively discharging her.

91. TXST has violated the Texas Labor Code.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 13
 VI.
TCHRA AND EPA RETALIATION

92. Plaintiff incorporates all of the above paragraphs as if restated herein.

93. Dr. Lamm engaged in protected activity on numerous occasions regarding the

unequal pay and other sex discrimination she experienced, including, at least

on July 25, 2019, April 9, 2021, July 5, 2021, August 1, 2021, September 20,

2021, and October 11, 2021.

94. As detailed above, TXST retaliated against Dr. Lamm by, among other things,

not promoting her, providing less opportunities and benefits, preventing her

advancement, and constructively discharging her.

95. TXST has retaliated against Dr. Lamm because of her participation in

protected activity.

96. TXST has violated the Texas Labor Code and the EPA.

VII
JURY DEMAND

97. Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

VIII
DAMAGES

98. Plaintiff seeks all damages allowed under the law, including monetary relief like

back pay, benefits, lost wages, and:

(a) Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendant from

engaging in unlawful practices.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 14
 (b) Plaintiff seeks additional equitable relief as may be appropriate

such as front pay, liquidated damages, and court costs.

(c) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for future pecuniary

losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.

(d) Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs including

reasonable expert fees.

(e) Plaintiff seeks pre and post judgment interest at the maximum

rate allowed by law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully prays that

Defendant be cited to appear and, that upon a trial on the merits, that all relief

requested be awarded to Plaintiff, and for such other and further relief to which

Plaintiff is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
WILEY WALSH, P.C.

By: /s/ Colin Walsh

Colin Walsh
Texas Bar No. 24079538
Board Certified Specialist, Texas Board of
Legal Specialization, Labor and Employment
Law

WILEY WALSH, P.C.

1011 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste 401
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 27-5527
Facsimile: (512) 201-1263
colin@wileywalsh.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION — PAGE 15