A recurring issue in retaliation lawsuits concerns the temporal connection between opposing discriminatory practices and the resulting discrimination. Fifth Circuit precedence suggests that a temporal connection alone that extends over four months is too long to infer a connection. That tension is vividly demonstrated in Stamps v. University of Texas System, No. 24-CV-00249 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2024). Prof. Stamps was employed at University of Texas at Austin as a professor of music. He had worked there for five years.In 2020, he reported to the school’s Office of Inclusion and Equity alleged sexual misconduct by administrators. Two weeks later, his contract was terminated. That series of events then led to a lawsuit against U.T. in Austin.

Dr. Stamps then moved to San Antonio. He applied for a teaching position with University of Texas at San Antonio. On Jan. 20, 2022, the UT System, not UTSA, notified Dr. Stamps that he was not selected. This position was known as the DH position.

On July 12 2022, he interviewed with UTSA for a part-time position in their music department. In his interview Dr. Stamps explained how he came to leave UT at Austin and mentioned his lawsuit against UT at Austin. He was hired for part-time position to teach an online class in which he had limited contact with students. Dr. Stamps was essentially overqualified for this position.

Tenure Track Position

On Oct. 14, 2022, Stamps applied for a tenure track position in the Music department. This was known as the DM position. In January, 2022, the plaintiff learned he was not selected for the position. The plaintiff filed a complaint with UTSA’s EEO office. Later, in his lawsuit, Dr. Stamps learned of a text exchange a member of the search committee expressed concern about hiring the “crazy” and “challenging” professor. That text referred to the plaintiff’s lawsuit against UT at Austin.

The Magistrate Judge pointed to Fifth Circuit caselaw which disfavored claims of retaliation based solely on timing – if that connection was longer than a few weeks or a few months. The Judge granted UT’s motion to dismiss – based on Rule 12(b)(6) – regarding the DM position. The Court noted that the Plaintiff did not plead that UT at San Antonio was aware of his lawsuit against UT at Austin when it passed him over in January 2022. Even so, the temporary connection from 2020 to January, 2022 was just too long.

Temporal Nexus

Regarding the DM position, the plaintiff told the search committee in July, 2022 about his lawsuit against UT at Austin. He was then told in January, 2023 that he would not get the tenure track position at UTSA. Here the timing is about 6.5 months. The Court found this was sufficient nexus between the two events. Plus, the text exchange amounts to more evidence than just a temporal connection.

Dr. Stamps did not have a lawyer at this point. He had written and filed his own response to the employer’s motion to dismiss. The Judge did not say so, but he was construing the pleadings of the pro se plaintiff liberally. The court also noted that during this 6.5 month time period, UTSA did hire Dr. Stamps. It hired him for a one semester job for which he was over-qualified. Then, upon the conclusion of the semester, it moved that part-time position to the job description for the tenure track position for which Stamps was turned down. Too, Stamps’ interview where he mentioned the UT lawsuit was in October, 2022. That means there was only a two month gap between the time when the search committee learned about his opposition to discrimination and the adverse personnel action.

The Judge described the causation nexus as plausible, but just “barely.” So, the Judge granted UT’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.