Federal Judge Permits Former Professors First Amendment Retaliation Counterclaim

Against Emporia State University Library School Employee Debra Rittgers to Proceed

Federal court rejects library deans assistant Rittgers attempt to dismiss former assistant
professor Dr. Melvin Hales counterclaim against Rittgers, who claims that she was defamed
after an incident in which a racial slur was found in the office of a graduate assistant at the
School of Library and Information Management (SLIM)

Hale, who is self-represented, claims that Rittgers suit is intended to frustrate and silence him
for the protected activities of reporting, speaking out and holding protests against racism on the
ESU campus in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, a federal law that allows lawsuits for violations of
constitutional rights and the First Amendment

Topeka, KS, June 5, 2017 A federal judge in Kansas last Friday rejected attempts by Emporia
State University (ESU) employee Debra Rittgers to dismiss a counterclaim brought against her
for filing a defamation lawsuit against Dr. Hale, a former professor she worked with at the
School of Library and Information Management (SLIM) at ESU. Hale, who argued that Rittgers
defamation lawsuit amounts to a violation of his right to free speech on a matter of public
concern is now allowed to move forward with his counterclaim. In his ruling, Senior District
Judge Sam Crow rejected Rittgers argument that Hales counterclaim was re-litigating a Title
VII and First Amendment retaliation lawsuit against ESU of which she was a party to and was
dismissed in June 2016. Although Rittgers claims that she is innocent, she has refused to take a
definitive handwriting examination, and has instead accepted a blanket exoneration offered by
the university after an internal investigation.

This is the fourth active federal lawsuit currently being litigated against ESU or employees of the
university that include federal constitutional civil rights and retaliation violations due to
allegations of racial turmoil at SLIM library school.

Rittgers attorney, Larry Michel, used an argument called res judicata, which is similar to the
concept of double jeopardy, to abort the counterclaim. Hale argued that his counterclaim was not
based on his claims in the other litigation against ESU and seven of its top administrators, which
is ongoing, but is based on the fact that Rittgers filed a lawsuit against him in October 2016
solely to silence and punish him for speaking out against racism at ESU when Rittgers was
implicated in the writing of a racial slur by a noted forensic document examiner. Crow rejected
the doctrine of res judicata as being applicable, or that Hales counterclaim was invalid on the
basis of his previous ruling, one which dismissed Rittgers from Hales First Amendment
retaliation violation lawsuit against ESU which includes Interim President Jackie Vietti, Provost
David Cordle, General Counsel Kevin Johnson, HR Director Judy Anderson, Assistant HR
Director Ray Lauber, Assistant Provost Gary Wyatt and Professor Mirah Dow as defendants. In
that case, the university is being charged with Title VII violations of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, landmark civil rights legislation banning employers from discriminating against employees
due to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Among other things, Title VII protects
those who report and/or protest against discrimination from retaliation.

Dr. Hale states that, The mere existence of hard-fought civil rights is meaningless unless one is
able to avail themselves of those rights in a court of law. In the age of the Internet, there is no
reason that laymen cannot make sense of the law and the rules of court, and push back against
injustice and racism on their own without an attorney when absolutely necessary. ESU, and those
aligned with them, appear to believe that they would not have to face justice, and they could
behave capriciously because of the difficulty of obtaining legal counsel in Kansas without
significant financial resources. My wife and I have to make many personal sacrifices in our fight
for justice, but we believe win or lose, that those who acted as if they were above the law will
only learn to respect our rights if we take a stand and hold them accountable for their heinous
conduct. The courts current decision regarding my counterclaim provides hope that justice is
possible.

A link to the June 2, 2017 court ruling may be viewed at March on Emporias website:
www.marchonemporia.com/updates.html

###