From Judge David Alan Ezra's decision in Penders v. St. Edward's Univ. (W.D. Tex.), decided in March but only recently posted to Westlaw, a case that has since settled with an undisclosed amount. Penders is a white male who was the head baseball coach from 2006 until his termination in 2021. He claims to be the winningest coach in SEU history and a model employee.Before the 2020 baseball season, Penders recruited Jacques Palmer, a black male. But the season was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 2021 season, Palmer had limited playing time and his eligibility expired. Palmer asked SEU to petition the NCAA for an extra year, but SEU decided not to. Palmer then accused Penders of racism and discrimination.An external investigator determined that Penders was not guilty of any racist or discriminatory acts. However, SEU and President Montserratt Fuentes concealed the investigation outcome and misled the community. They deployed "optics" to make it seem like Penders was guilty.Subsequently, Palmer took to social media to pressure Fuentes to fire Penders. A petition was posted with false claims against Penders. Fuentes' email in response failed to mention Penders' exoneration. This triggered a petition with over 600 signatures calling for Penders' termination, including some from SEU faculty.A student-led protest occurred on the campus. Melinda Terry tried to set the record straight but SEU didn't. Dom Thornton, a former baseball player, accused Penders of race discrimination three years later. After a thorough investigation, the external investigator found Penders not guilty. But Fuentes still decided to terminate Penders.Penders sued for race discrimination, retaliation, and defamation. The court allowed the retaliation and defamation claims to go to trial. SEU's statements were found to be defamatory by implication as they omitted Penders' exoneration.SEU argued that its statements were true and substantially true. But Penders disputed this, citing evidence that SEU omitted key facts. The court agreed with Penders, finding a dispute of fact on this issue.The court also noted that plaintiff didn't have to prove specific damages as the accusations were "defamation per se." Statements that portray a baseball coach as engaging in racism or discrimination are detrimental to one's professional ability. A character trait of not being racist is "peculiarly valuable" in a baseball coach's profession.In conclusion, this case highlights the complex issues of race, discrimination, and defamation in a university setting. "Unraveling the Racism Allegations at St. Edward's Univ."
Section 1: The Recruitment and Cancellation
Penders, a renowned coach, recruited Jacques Palmer before the 2020 baseball season. However, the pandemic led to the abrupt cancellation of the season. This set the stage for subsequent events.During this time, Palmer's playing time and eligibility became issues. His request for an extra year of eligibility was denied by SEU, which led to accusations against Penders.Section 2: The Investigation and Concealment
An external investigator was hired to look into Palmer's allegations. Surprisingly, the investigator found Penders innocent. But SEU and Fuentes chose to conceal this truth and mislead the community.They deployed various tactics to create a false narrative, making it seem like Penders was guilty. This led to further tensions and misunderstandings.Section 3: The Social Media and Petitions
Palmer took to social media to put pressure on Fuentes to fire Penders. A petition was posted with false claims against Penders, which spread quickly.Fuentes' email in response failed to address the exoneration, further fueling the controversy. The petition gained over 600 signatures, including from SEU faculty.Section 4: The Thornton Incident
Dom Thornton, a former baseball player, accused Penders of race discrimination three years later. After a thorough investigation, Penders was again found not guilty.But Fuentes still decided to terminate Penders, despite the evidence. This added another layer of complexity to the case.Section 5: The Legal Battle
Penders sued for race discrimination, retaliation, and defamation. The court allowed the retaliation and defamation claims to go to trial.SEU's statements were found to be defamatory by implication. They omitted key facts and created a false impression of Penders' guilt.SEU argued that its statements were true and substantially true, but Penders disputed this. The court agreed with Penders, finding a dispute of fact.In conclusion, this case shows the importance of transparency and truth in such situations. It also highlights the impact of such issues on a university's reputation and the lives of those involved.
