A lawsuit filed by a former University of Wyoming (UW) dean, who alleges he was demoted in retaliation for refusing to improperly divert state funds, will move forward after a judge declined the university's request for dismissal. The case centers on claims that former dean Cameron Wright was removed from his position for opposing a financial transfer to a school led by the university president's partner.
Key Takeaways
- A judge has allowed a lawsuit by former UW Dean Cameron Wright against the university to continue.
- Wright claims his demotion was retaliation for refusing to redirect funds meant for the engineering college.
- The funds were allegedly requested for a computing school run by the UW president's romantic partner.
- The University of Wyoming sought to dismiss the case, arguing Wright failed to use internal administrative procedures first.
- The judge ruled there was insufficient evidence at this stage to determine if Wright was required to exhaust those internal remedies before filing his lawsuit.
Judge Denies University's Motion to Dismiss
During a court hearing on Tuesday, Albany County District Court Judge Misha Westby ruled against the University of Wyoming's motion to throw out a lawsuit filed by Cameron Wright, the former dean of the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences (CEPS). The university had argued for the case's dismissal on procedural grounds.
The hearing, which lasted over an hour, involved detailed arguments from both Wright's attorney, Mary Elizabeth Galvan, and the university's counsel, KayLynn Bestol. Following the discussion, Judge Westby concluded that the case should not be dismissed at this early phase.
The Central Conflict Over Funding and Demotion
The lawsuit stems from Wright's demotion in the spring of this year, a decision made following a vote by the UW Board of Trustees. The university's official reason for the demotion was that Wright lacked a "cogent plan" to use state money to elevate the engineering college to a level of national excellence.
However, Wright's legal complaint presents a different narrative. He alleges the demotion was "solely in retaliation" for his refusal to transfer state funds allocated for his college. According to the lawsuit, the funds were intended for a new computing school managed by Dr. Gabrielle Allen, the romantic partner of UW President Ed Seidel.
Background on the Allegations
The lawsuit claims that President Seidel insisted on Wright's removal. While the legal filing does not specify a dollar amount, public discussion surrounding the incident suggested the disputed funds were approximately $500,000 annually. Wright's action is based on the State Government Fraud Reduction Act, a whistleblower law designed to protect employees who report potential violations of law or policy in good faith.
Claims of Retaliation and Defamation
Wright's complaint directly accuses the university of violating state whistleblower protections. The law prohibits state employers from penalizing employees who report what they believe to be illegal or improper use of funds.
"On information and belief, it was at Dr. Seidel’s insistence, the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees removed Plaintiff as Dean of the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences," states the official complaint.
In addition to the retaliation claim, the lawsuit also targets the UW trustees. Wright accuses them of damaging his professional reputation by publicly releasing "otherwise confidential information falsely denigrating his performance as Dean" in their efforts to justify his demotion.
Procedural Arguments Take Center Stage
A significant portion of the hearing focused on whether Wright had followed the correct procedures before taking legal action. The University of Wyoming's attorney, KayLynn Bestol, argued that state law required Wright to first exhaust all available administrative remedies within the university system before filing a lawsuit.
Bestol contended that Wright should have taken his complaint to the university's human resources or audit departments. She argued that even if these internal channels were described as optional, the law makes them mandatory prerequisites for a whistleblower lawsuit.
The Legal Debate
- University's Position: Wright was legally required to use internal UW complaint systems (like HR) before suing.
- Wright's Position: The internal systems were presented as optional, not as a required step for a whistleblower claim.
In response, Wright's attorney, Mary Elizabeth Galvan, argued that these internal remedies were framed as optional choices, not mandatory requirements. Furthermore, she stated that the university did not specify that these procedures were the designated path for complaints under the State Government Fraud Reduction Act.
Judge's Ruling and Future of the Case
Judge Westby ultimately decided she did not have enough evidence to rule on the procedural issue. She explained that the key question is whether the university properly informed Wright of mandatory administrative remedies as required by law.
"If the remedies that are being alleged by the University of Wyoming have not been provided to the plaintiff, as an employee, as part of this process as required... then I think there’s no administrative remedy to exhaust," Westby stated during the hearing.
Conversely, she noted that if appropriate remedies were available and communicated, then Wright would have been obligated to use them first. The judge suggested this question of procedure might be better resolved during a later phase of the lawsuit known as "summary judgment," allowing the case to proceed for now.
