Appendix (patient details, diagnosis terms and therapy details blacked out on this copy)¶
Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 2026-02 · 2026-02 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
KEVIN N. BASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
§
§
§
PLAINTIFF'S APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 27) AND PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 26)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Admissibility Framework
Tab A: Defendants' Contemporaneous Admissions ...................................................................4
A-1. On Safety .....................................................................................................................4
A-2. On Protected Speech ....................................................................................................6
A-3. On Motive ....................................................................................................................7
A-4. On Fair Process ..........................................................................................................10
A-5. On Disability Awareness ...........................................................................................11
Tab B: Threat Assessment Questionnaire .................................................................................15
Tab C: Hearing Record Excerpts ...............................................................................................19
C-1. Key Testimony ...........................................................................................................19
C-2. Hearing Officer's Selective Invocation of Legal Authority .......................................20
C-3. Hot Mic Audio Evidence ...........................................................................................21
Tab D: Gibson Contract Summary ............................................................................................24
D-1. OCC Contracts Between TTUHSC and Gibson ........................................................24
D-2. Predetermination Evidence ........................................................................................24
D-3. Hearing Asymmetry...................................................................................................25
Tab E: Publication Chain ............................................................................................................27
E-1. Publication Channels ..................................................................................................27
E-2. Per-Official Statements ..............................................................................................27
Tab F: Master Chronology and Statute of Limitations ............................................................31
F-1. Chronology .................................................................................................................31
F-2. Discrete Acts Within Limitations Period ...................................................................37
F-3. Predetermination Timeline .........................................................................................38
Tab G: Doc. 27 vs. Complaint Comparison...............................................................................40
G-1. Outside-the-Pleadings Material .................................................................................40
G-2. Misrepresentations of the Complaint's Content .........................................................40
G-3. Internal Inconsistencies in Doc. 27 and Defendants' Exhibits...................................43
Tab H: Institutional Policies .......................................................................................................47
H-1. Speech Protections .....................................................................................................47
H-2. Hearing Officer Neutrality .........................................................................................48
H-3. Disability Accommodation ........................................................................................48
H-4. Anti-Retaliation .........................................................................................................49
H-5. Academic vs. Disciplinary Classification ..................................................................49
H-5a. Institutional Counsel Control — Chronological Chain ...........................................51
Tab J: Exhibit Index ....................................................................................................................56
Tab K: Additional Factual Record .............................................................................................64
2
K-1. Chilling Effect ...........................................................................................................64
K-2. General Counsel Admissions.....................................................................................65
K-3. Criminal Trespass Warning .......................................................................................65
K-4. Fernandes Complaint Detail ......................................................................................66
K-5. Wilson Escalation Pipeline ........................................................................................67
K-6. Suppressed Evidence .................................................................................................68
K-7. Consciousness of Wrongdoing ..................................................................................68
K-8. Voluntary Restrictions Rejected ................................................................................70
K-9. Complaint-by-Complaint Summary ..........................................................................71
K-10. Erwin Two-Faced Coaching ....................................................................................72
K-11. Threat Assessment Protocol Violation ....................................................................73
K-12. The Six "Substandard Evaluations" .........................................................................74
K-13. The Seven Grievances .............................................................................................78
K-14. Disability-to-Dismissal Factual Chain .....................................................................80
K-15. Plaintiff's Contemporaneous Appeal (January 4, 2024) ..........................................82
K-16. Debt Collection Escalation Following Protected Activity.......................................84
K-17. Zavala Fabricated Allegation ...................................................................................85
K-18. Grade Manipulation as Predetermination Evidence ................................................85
K-19. Campus Ban Selective Enforcement — Witness Blocking .....................................86
K-20. Fell Comparator Evidence — Disparate Treatment ................................................87
K-21. Van Overdam (TAMU) Comparator .......................................................................87
K-22. Board "Retroactive Leniency" Admission ...............................................................88
K-23. Johnson Dossier — Mental Health Recharacterization and Newsweek Essay .......89
3
This Appendix compiles documents central to and referenced by the complaint, Lone Star
Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010), in support of the
Rule 15(a)(2) futility analysis for Doc. 26. "FERPA Doc ####" refers to Plaintiff's internal
identifier for a specific record reviewed during the January 2026 FERPA inspection of Plaintiff's
educational records.
TAB A: DEFENDANTS' CONTEMPORANEOUS ADMISSIONS
A-1. On Safety
Official
Statement
Source
Williams
"I've never sensed threat or
danger or anything like that"
Nov 5, 2023 recording
[01:49:04]
Williams
Checked "NO" on Q5: "Does
this involve criminal felony
charges related to weapons,
drugs, aggravated assault,
and/or terroristic threats?" —
yet signed the emergency
removal that triggered the
BOLO stating "life-or-death
situation"
Interim Suspension
Questionnaire (Exhibit E011), Nov 3-4, 2023
Vince Fell (institution's
Threat Assessment reviewer)
Q: "What was the threat of
destruction expressed in this
post?" A: "Post? None.
Nothing."
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Fell
University was NOT placed
on lockdown
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Forbes
"I did not feel physically
threatened by Kevin but I
sure felt like he was
threatening my career... I
feel Kevin is backed into a
corner and I am not 100%
sure how he will behave."
FERPA Doc 0043 (Aug 14,
2023 meeting account)
Williams (investigation)
Investigated the August
campus debadging;
confirmed Forbes walked
back physical threat to career
FERPA Doc 0835 (Nov 6,
2023)
4
threat; campus block was
reversed when "threat level
was not as severe as first
perceived"; then wrote
institution will "continue to
use an abundance of
caution" and procedures
followed "school policies" —
wrote this report while the
second removal (signed Nov
4) was already in effect
Williams (recording)
Plaintiff recorded Williams
admitting he knew Plaintiff
was not a threat — one day
after signing the second
emergency removal and one
day before writing the
investigation report
documenting the first was an
overreaction
Nov 5, 2023 recording
Korinek
"Kevin is not a danger to
anyone. I don't believe he
ever had any intention of
physically harming anyone at
TTUHSC."
Dec 8, 2023 letter
Erwin
"I don't take that to be a
threat from you but boy, I
understand how other people
would get that. You and I
have worked very intensively
on a lot of personal issues. I
get who you are."
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Frantz (PGY-4, Psychiatry)
"He had no intention in this
communication to threaten
anyone"; described Plaintiff
as showing "remarkable
maturity and self
awareness"
Support letter
Wilson
"I did not interpret it as a
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
threat by myself. I looked for
context"
Bates
"This is due to recent posts
on social media. There is no
threat to you specifically."
5
Dec 5, 2023 email (FERPA
Doc 1143)
TAT process
Threat Assessment did not
consult Plaintiff's regular
contacts—Trotter, Erwin, or
Frantz—before making its
determination
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
The BOLO stated "threatening statements" and "call 911 for life-or-death situation."
A-2. On Protected Speech
Official
Statement
Source
Justyna → Cobbs
"After our training with
General Counsel recently
regarding free speech I
know there is little we can
do when students express
opinions, even very
unfortunate or out of the
mainstream ones." Then:
"Pam, Lauren, do you
recognize this student?"
Defendant Cobbs replied
same day: "Yes Kevin Bass
is enrolled in the MD/PhD
program... Let me know if I
can be of assistance."
(FERPA Doc 1437.) Same
day, Berk separately
mobilized Williams and
Schneider about the identical
tweets.
Aug 24, 2020 email (FERPA
Doc 1432, 1437)
Berk
"Free speech issue??"
Aug 2020 email
Williams
"It is obviously protected
speech ... we need to discuss
an appropriate response."
Feb 1, 2023 email (FERPA
Doc 953)
Berk
"We had problems with him
on Twitter before... same
free speech issues... I think
we should discuss with
legal."
Feb 1, 2023 response
(FERPA Doc 1004)
Williams
"Free speech is free speech"
Nov 5, 2023 recording
[00:35:39]
Hearing Officer
"There is a First Amendment
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
6
issues related to someone's
free speech."
Williams
"We have no problems with Sep 2, 2023 email (FERPA
your tweets. You are free to Doc 953)
post whatever you want." —
63 days before removal
Kopel
"You should take Joe Rogan Dec 2021
off your twitter" — fellow
student speech policing 23
months before tweet
Ganapathy
"I do not know when you
will stop this charade.
Please be sensible because
you are hurting others." —
PhD advisor forwarding
external viewpoint complaint
targeting "anti-vaxx, antiCovid" speech, 7 months
before tweet
Apr 15, 2023 email
Official
Statement
Source
Williams
Response was "pretty
extreme"
Nov 5, 2023 recording
[01:05:17]
Williams
Could "only think of this
happening once before" in
all his years
Nov 5, 2023 recording
Williams
"People shouldn't overreact
to your tweets"
Nov 5, 2023 recording
[00:53:29]
Bates
Plaintiff "has been removed...
due to his social media... no
threat to you specifically"
Post-removal email
Cobbs
"It is not a dispute that he has Aug 22, 2023 internal
a right to say whatever he
document
wishes. However as a matter
of professionalism..."
Erwin
"The social media issues
came up. They cannot be
ignored. They raise issues of
constitutional free speech...
He seems to be taking his
A-3. On Motive
7
FERPA Doc 0124, coaching
notes (post-Aug 8, 2023)
First Amendment rights to
make an idiot of himself"
Erwin
"KB has imbibed the
cultural atmosphere of
conspiracy theories. This is
reflected in his combative
attitude towards me and
everyone who is trying to
help him, as well as towards
the CDC response to COVID
as a conspiracy." Compared
Plaintiff to Trump indictment
in same document.
FERPA Doc 0124
Erwin
"K has an extremely high
need to feel significant
which he lives out through
intellectual narcissism"; "K
has a high level of paranoia
and fear that he is being
targeted"; "K is unable to
differentiate attention from
online followers and real life
relationships"
FERPA Doc 0083
Erwin
"Stop and think about what FERPA Doc 0083/0132
you really want. You love
the attention from social
media but recognize that a lot
of people in your real life
have stopped talking with
you. Which do you really
want?" — coaching explicitly
targeting protected First
Amendment activity
Erwin
Oct 4, 2023: "I have come to
believe the incident with the
first clerkship, the incident
of intimidating Rachel
Forbes and the incident of
sexually harassing all stem
from his resentment and
inability to be emotionally
honest with himself" — preconcluded all complaints
were personality defects
before testifying
8
Erwin coaching notes, Oct 4,
2023
Erwin
Nov 29, 2023: "I consider a
legal action against my
employer a direct disregard
of and abandonment of our
friendship" — equated
Plaintiff's exercise of right to
file suit with personal
betrayal
Erwin coaching notes, Nov
29, 2023
Erwin
Two-faced contrast: privately
wrote "conspiracy theories,"
"intellectual narcissism,"
"paranoia," "making an idiot
of himself" while texting
Plaintiff "You were lovely"
(Sept 7), "I will not abandon
you... Your friend, Dr.
Erwin" (Oct 29)
FERPA Doc 0083/0124 vs.
text messages
Erwin
"Goal: overarching goal is to
find a path for K to stay in
med school. Outcome:
moderating his behavior,
especially his
communications with
others." Last saved
December 11, 2023 — day
of hearing. Enrollment
conditioned on speech
modification.
FERPA Doc 0132
Ganapathy
Admin told advisor "don't
whitewash" Plaintiff —
institutional directive 8
months before tweet
Mar 2023
Institutional
Pam Johnson's compiled
dossier (FERPA Doc 1432):
tweets, Newsweek articles,
external complaints, social
media posts, academic
records retroactively
assembled from 2020
through 2023. External
complainants' letters filed.
Plaintiff's reaction: "They
put this in my file!"
FERPA Doc 1432 (multipage compiled dossier)
Williams
Grievances "very quickly
turn into a burgeoning
Nov 5, 2023 [00:49:03]
9
sense of people feeling
threatened"
Wilson
Faculty fear was "fear of
retaliation"—not physical
harm, but that Plaintiff would
file complaints about them
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Wilson
"It doesn't feel that it's a
malicious type of
unprofessional behavior... I
don't think you're walking
and doing things on purpose"
Oct 13, 2023 recording
Wilson
"I'm not sure quite if it's just a Oct 13, 2023 recording
personality thing for you...
and then it comes off that
way"
Trotter
Had Plaintiff's Twitter feed
Nov 2023
open during meetings; offered
binary "withdraw or hearing"
ultimatum
A-4. On Fair Process
Official
Statement
Source
Williams
"That's just not the way the
process works" (re: preremoval conversation)
Nov 5, 2023 recording
[01:10:29]
Plaintiff → Williams
Plaintiff told Williams: "this
process has not seemed very
transparent to me" —
Williams did not dispute
Nov 5, 2023 recording
[00:08:59]
Williams
"You're right. I am in a
position of power."
Nov 5, 2023 recording
[01:48:13]
Trotter
Promised grievances would
be heard first because it
"provides you the most
protection"
Pre-hearing recording
Actual
Structure reversed morningof hearing; grievances heard
LAST after 10+ hours
Dec 11, 2023
Forbes
"No specifics will be given"
(re: incident-level notice)
July 21, 2023 email
10
Trotter
Plaintiff asked Trotter to
testify as a defense witness
(on recording); Trotter said
he would ask; later told
Plaintiff he could not, citing
General Counsel
Pre-hearing recording; TAC
¶63
Witness count
Administration: 18
authorized, 10 testified.
Plaintiff: 0 (all denied)
Dec 11, 2023 hearing; Board
Determination fn.4
Time allocation
~10 hours adverse testimony,
~30 minutes defense
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Korinek
"I did NOT attend the
meeting in which the
decision was made... My
Associate attended, but only
listened to the proceedings.
She did not give any input"
— mental health professional
had NO input on "threat"
determination
Nov 10, 2023 email
Appeals Panel
"Lack of specificity in
descriptions of the lapse in
professionalism" — reversed
earlier finding against
Plaintiff; within 11 days, two
new evaluations with
unprecedented specificity
appeared (TAC ¶68)
Sept 7, 2023 SPPCC appeal
Official
Statement
Source
Department
"He may struggle to
overcome difficulties
relating socially to patients
and members of the medical
team"
May-June 2023 MRFA
Preceptors
"Multiple preceptors have
remarked on his
awkwardness"
May-June 2023 MRFA
Faculty
"Struggles. Not smooth at
all. Seems uneasy, beyond
May-June 2023 evaluation
A-5. On Disability Awareness
11
what I would have expected"
Wilson
Testified Plaintiff had trouble
with "social cues" —
Wilson's own term
Wilson
"I'm not sure quite if it's just a Oct 13, 2023 recording
personality thing for you...
and then it comes off that
way"
Plaintiff
"I'm gonna be quiet. A lot
more quiet than I've been...
I feel antisocial and I hate
it" (said directly to Defendant
Wilson)
Mid-Sept 2023 recording
Erwin
Plaintiff "probably on the
"
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Erwin
NO REFERRAL to
specialist made despite this
assessment
Aug-Oct 2023 coaching
Erwin
"His biggest emotion is fear"
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Korinek
Warned of "confirmation
Dec 8, 2023 letter
bias whereby his mistakes are
viewed more negatively"
SDS
Issued NO accommodation
determination before 14-hour
hearing
Dec 11, 2023
Gibson
Called 15-minute break to
deliberate on
accommodations, then denied
every substantive request
(attorney participation,
neuropsychologist testimony,
unredacted eval) while
offering water, snacks, and
breaks — performative
gestures available to any
participant regardless of
disability
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Wierzchowski
"is not found to be
indicative of increased
chances toward criminal
activity or violence";
Plaintiff is "a sensitive and
gentle individual"
Dec 6, 2023 neuropsych eval
(TTUHSC-0000068)
12
Dec 11, 2023 hearing
Gibson
Redacted accommodation
recommendations from
neuropsych eval as "outside
scope"
Dec 11, 2023
Department
"In looking ahead at Mock
OSCE/OSCE, please send
me any accommodations
you have directly so those
can be kept in mind for
scheduling." — proactive
solicitation for exams; no
equivalent solicitation for
Dec 11 hearing
Jul 24, 2023 email
Board (Defs' Ex. 8)
Referenced Plaintiff's "preexisting
diagnosis"
— Board's own admission
that TTUHSC knew of a
qualifying disability before
December 2023
Dec 27, 2023 Board Findings
Wilson
"It doesn't feel that it's a
malicious type of
unprofessional behavior... I
don't think you're walking
and doing things on
purpose" — acknowledged
behavior was neither
intentional nor malicious,
yet continued filing
misconduct reports and
testified in support of
dismissal for that same
behavior
Oct 13, 2023 recording
Erwin
FERPA Doc 0132 (created
Aug 10, 2023, last saved
December 11, 2023 — the
day of the hearing): "Goal:
overarching goal is to find a
path for K to stay in med
school. Outcome:
moderating his behavior,
especially his
communications with
others." — conditioned
continued enrollment on
FERPA Doc 0132
13
speech modification while
pathologizing disability traits
25 hours of recordings
Approximately thirty to forty
patient encounters across
pediatrics and family
medicine rotations: ZERO
socially inappropriate
moments. Resident: "I'm just
gonna wait" (Plaintiff
handling family
communication competently).
Classmate confirmed Plaintiff
reads social cues. DeSoto:
"You're doing great." Family
Medicine resident:
assessment plan was "great."
Sept 27 – Nov 1, 2023
recordings (TAC ¶142B)
Defendants' awareness of Plaintiff's disability predated the formal diagnosis by 7
months. Twenty-five hours of contemporaneous clinical recordings directly contradict the
characterizations used to dismiss Plaintiff.
14
TAB B: THREAT ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Williams completed TTUHSC's Interim Suspension Questionnaire on November 3-4,
2023.
Williams's Ten-Question Threat Assessment
Q#
Question
Answer
Williams's
Justification
Context
1
Physical/emotional
well-being
endangered?
Yes
"Several faculty
members and
staff contacted
members of the
SOM
administration
after seeing Dr.
Bass' post on X,
expressing
concern for
personal safety."
The "concerned"
faculty were the
same people
Plaintiff had
grievances
against (Q3).
2
Presence could
disrupt operations?
Yes
Cited 3 pending
complaints
(crush texts,
illness photos,
patient contact)
and said
"tension and
concern...
escalated" after
the tweet.
Three unrelated
complaints —
none involving
violence — used
to bootstrap a
tweet into an
"emergency."
3
Significant articulable
continuous threat?
Yes
"Dr. Bass has
filed several
grievances...
Those involved
in the processes
were among
those expressing
a high degree of
concern."
The "threatened"
people were the
subjects of
Plaintiff's
grievances — a
conflict of
interest.
4
Sexual misconduct /
stalking?
No
—
—
5
Criminal felony /
No
—
Williams
15
terroristic threats?
confirmed: NOT
a terroristic
threat. The
BOLO stated
"threatening
statements" and
"call 911 for
life-or-death
situation."
6
Severe disruption /
erratic behavior?
Yes
"Dr. Bass has
tended to place
the blame for his
behavior on
others rather
than reflecting
on his own
role."
Filing
grievances
recharacterized
as "placing
blame."
7
No Contact Order
violation?
No
—
—
8
Retaliatory harm /
harassment?
Yes
"Dr. Bass has
filed numerous
grievances
against
members of the
TTUHSC
faculty and
staff in
response to
their
assessments of
his professional
behavior."
The institution's
own form
classifies
grievance-filing
as "retaliatory
harm."
9
Could result in
Yes
suspension/expulsion?
"Dr. Bass is
facing
disciplinary
hearings about
concerning
behavior."
The hearings
were triggered
by the very
assessment
being
completed.
10
Credible evidence?
"Evidence
includes the
comments of
assessors in
clinical
clerkships,
complaints
The tweet — a
philosophical
reflection on
mortality — was
the "credible
evidence" for
emergency
Yes
16
about the
behavior of Dr.
Bass and the
post on X."
removal.
Summary: 7 "Yes" answers, 3 "No" answers. The only "No" answers — Q4, Q5, Q7 —
correspond to questions where the objective record left no room for an affirmative answer.
Source: `SOM - BASS, K. Threat Assessment Conference.Interim Suspension.txt` (Exhibit E011), lines 195-332.
Threat Assessment Protocol Flowchart
The same document contains TTUHSC's Student Threat Assessment Protocol — a
written decision tree that governs the emergency removal process. The protocol contains a
mandatory decision point:
"Is There any Physical or Other Credible Evidence (e.g., Injuries, Witness
Statements, Video Surveillance)?"
- If Yes → After conferring with OGC, Chief of Police requests security hold and
considers criminal trespass
- If No → "No Security Hold or Criminal Trespass is Issued" (mandatory
outcome)
In Plaintiff's case:
- No injuries existed.
- No witness statements identified a specific person threatened by Plaintiff.
- No video surveillance captured threatening behavior.
- Williams's own Q10 answer cited only "comments of assessors," "complaints about
behavior," and "the post on X" — none of which constitute "Physical or Other Credible
Evidence" as the protocol defines it.
The protocol's mandatory pathway required: "No Security Hold or Criminal Trespass is
Issued." TTUHSC issued both.
17
Source:
Conference.Interim Suspension.txt`
Suspension.txt` (Exhibit
(Exhibit ESource: `SOM
`SOM -- BASS,
BASS,K.
K.Threat
ThreatAssessment
Assessment Conference.Interim
E-
011), lines
011),
lines 69-193.
69-193.
18
18
TAB C: HEARING RECORD EXCERPTS
December 11, 2023 hearing. Based on Plaintiff's notes from post-hearing review of the
hearing recording.
C-1. Key Testimony
Speaker
Verbatim Quote
Gibson
Self-identified as a "retained" Littler
Mendelson attorney
Gibson
Denied Plaintiff's neuropsychologist because
"the university did not have time to identify
[a] rebuttal witness"
Gibson
Added Erwin as university witness morningof: "I'm going to allow Dr. [Erwin] to be
added as a witness"
Gibson
Told Plaintiff "you have 20 more minutes" for
all remaining questioning (after Wilson's ~80minute examination against stated 30min/witness limit)
Wilson
Faculty fear was "fear of retaliation" —
meaning Plaintiff would file complaints, not
physical harm
Gibson
"There is a First Amendment issues related to
someone's free speech"
Fell
Q: "What was the threat of destruction
expressed in this post?" A: "Post? None.
Nothing."
Erwin
"I don't take that to be a threat from you
but boy, I understand how other people would
get that... I get who you are."
Erwin
Plaintiff "probably
"
Gibson
Promised rules would be "applied equally
both parties"
Gibson
"I'm not going to allow that testimony" (re:
neuropsychologist)
Gibson
"Your attorneys cannot ask questions of
witnesses directly"
19
Hearing Asymmetry Summary
Procedure
University
Plaintiff
Wilson examination time
~80 minutes (against stated
30-min/witness limit)
~20 minutes remaining for all
questioning (Gibson: "you
have 20 more minutes")
Late witness additions
Erwin added morning-of:
"I'm going to allow"
Neuropsychologist: "did not
have time to identify rebuttal
witness"
Objections
Raised procedural points
throughout
Contemporaneous objections
banned
Evidence
Late/redacted evidence
accepted
Accommodation evidence
"outside scope"
Cross-examination
Full questioning allowed
Written questions subject to
rejection
Witness count
18 authorized, 10 testified
0 witnesses (all denied)
Time Allocation
- Administration: ~10 hours adverse testimony
- Plaintiff: ~30 minutes defense
- Total proceeding: ~14 hours
BOLO References in Hearing Record
A comprehensive review of Plaintiff's notes from post-hearing review of the hearing
recording confirms zero references to "BOLO," "be on the lookout," "trespass warning,"
"campus ban," or "security poster" anywhere in the proceeding. The hearing never addressed the
dangerousness stigma.
C-2. Hearing Officer's Selective Invocation of Legal Authority
Gibson framed the hearing as "not an adversarial courtroom proceeding" to deny Plaintiff
20
cross-examination and attorney participation. Yet when Plaintiff attempted to question witnesses,
Gibson invoked legal standards to restrict Plaintiff's participation:
Gibson Ruling
Context
Effect
"This is not an adversarial
courtroom proceeding"
Denying attorney questioning
and cross-examination
Legal protections denied
"From a legal perspective,
questions that are
problematic"
Interrupting Plaintiff's
questioning of witnesses
Legal authority invoked to
restrict Plaintiff
Referenced "evidentiary
concerns"
Blocking Plaintiff's lines of
inquiry
Legal standards applied
against Plaintiff
Referenced "legal matter
objections"
Sustaining objections against
Plaintiff
Legal procedure enforced
one-directionally
The consequences of the proceeding were entirely legal — permanent dismissal, criminal
trespass, BOLO, police escort — but the protections that accompany legal proceedings (crossexamination, objections, attorney participation) were denied as inapplicable to a "non-legal"
proceeding.
C-3. Hot Mic Audio Evidence — "Incapable of Remediating" Contradicted by 25 Hours of
Recordings
Plaintiff possesses contemporaneous audio recordings spanning approximately twentyfive hours of clinical activity across his pediatrics and family medicine rotations (September 27
through November 1, 2023), capturing approximately thirty to forty patient encounters with
children, parents, residents, attending physicians, and clinic staff. None were made for litigation
purposes. Across this entire body of recordings, there is not a single instance of socially
inappropriate behavior, failure to read social cues, difficulty with interpersonal communication,
or conduct that could reasonably be characterized as a "social skills deficit." (TAC ¶142B.)
Source
Quote / Observation
Significance
Senior Resident (Oct 11,
"I feel like I interject too
Resident chose not to
21
2023)
much, so I think I'm just
gonna wait"
intervene because the thirdyear medical student was
handling family
communication competently
Supervising Resident
Q: "Anything I could have
No deficiency identified by
done better?" A: "I don't think direct supervisor
I thought of anything. I really
don't."
DeSoto (attending physician,
~3 weeks contact)
"You're doing great"; formal
evaluation: "good HPI";
wrote letter of
recommendation
Confidence in Plaintiff's
clinical knowledge —
independent evaluator outside
Wilson's sphere
Family Medicine resident
(Nov 2023)
Assessment plan was "great"
and "included discussion of
the clinical decision making
reasoning"
Different department,
different team — same
competent performance
Resident (
patient
encounter, Oct 2023)
"I think you did a good job
reassuring them"
Direct supervisor praised
Plaintiff's patient/family
communication
Wilson (private recordings)
"A tremendous love of
learning"; "very invested in
[his] patients"; "really pretty
decent about asking and
seeking feedback"
Wilson praised Plaintiff
privately while building
adverse file officially
Patient — Clinical Excellence Recharacterized as Misconduct (TAC
¶142C). Plaintiff earned the trust of an adolescent
first-time
, received the patient's
disclosure — a disclosure that occurs only when a patient feels safe —
and filed a CPS report on the direction of hospital expert Conyer. The institution converted this
episode of clinical excellence into three adverse evaluations (Nunez: "not following
instructions"; Eboh: "time management"; Jensen: cross-referenced Nunez without firsthand
observation).
The "Be Honest" Trap (TAC ¶142D). Plaintiff was told to "be honest" about areas for
improvement. He was genuinely self-critical — and his evaluations then contained those same
self-criticisms "almost magnified, like almost exaggerated and then stated as if it was like a fact."
22
The pattern — literal compliance with explicit instruction producing adverse consequences —
mirrors the CPS episode and the grievance-filing retaliation (TAC ¶58): in each instance,
Plaintiff did exactly what an authority figure told him to do, and the institution used his
compliance against him.
These recordings directly contradict:
- Erwin's characterization that Plaintiff "lacks basic social skills" (TAC ¶39(b))
- The Board's finding that Plaintiff was "incapable of remediating or modifying his behavior"
- Defendants' claim that the dismissal was based on genuine professionalism deficiencies
rather than retaliation
23
TAB D: GIBSON CONTRACT SUMMARY
D-1. OCC Contracts Between TTUHSC and Gibson
Contract
Period
Amount
Rate
Firm
OCC 2020-7680641
Mar 2020 – Aug
2021
$49,000
$475/hr
Littler
Mendelson
OCC 2020-7680674
Jun 2020 – Aug
2021
$49,000
$475/hr
Littler
Mendelson
OCC 2022-7680123
Sept 2021 – Aug
2023
$49,000
$525/hr
Littler
Mendelson
OCC 2022-7680124
Sept 2021 – Aug
2023
$49,000
$525/hr
Littler
Mendelson
OCC 2024-7680010
Sept 2023 – Aug
2025
$49,000
$525/hr
Littler
Mendelson
OCC 2024-7680018
Sept 2023 – Aug
2025
$49,000
$525/hr
Littler
Mendelson
OCC 2025-7680071
May 2025 – Aug $50,000
2025
$525/hr
Michael Best &
Friedrich
OCC 2026-7680034
Sept 2025 – Aug
2027
$49,000
$525/hr
Michael Best &
Friedrich
TOTAL
Mar 2020 –
Aug 2027
$393,000+
Contract scope: "Outside counsel will provide legal advice and consultation regarding
employment law... Outside counsel may also serve as a hearing officer for employment and
academic grievance hearings."
Total documented payments around the hearing period: $37,891.75+ (Voucher No. 5,
March 2024).
When Gibson moved from Littler Mendelson to Michael Best & Friedrich, TTUS
executed a new OCC with his new firm — the contracts were personal to Gibson.
D-2. Predetermination Evidence
The following timeline demonstrates predetermination:
24
- Apr 26, 2023 (7 months before tweet): Trotter: "I will help collect more information" (TAC
¶55(a))
- Jun 26, 2023: Forbes emailed Trotter evaluation documents "ahead of our meeting
tomorrow" — feeding him evidence 5 months before tweet (FERPA Doc 0887)
- Aug 4-8, 2023: Forbes personally drafted and edited the SPPCC letter; document metadata
shows Forbes AND Cobbs edited the file; singular "event" changed to plural "events" to
broaden charges (FERPA Doc 0436-0438)
- Sep 7, 2023: Williams circulated "Draft for appeal decision" for the SPPCC appeal — the
same day Plaintiff won that appeal (FERPA Doc 949)
- Sep 29, 2023 (5 weeks before tweet): Wilson filed misconduct report recommending
"suspension or dismissal" (IR00000505)
- Nov 4, 2023 (37 days before hearing): Forbes disseminated exclusion directive to 30+
Covenant Branch personnel (TAC ¶118)
- Nov 9, 2023: Trotter offered binary "withdraw or hearing" ultimatum (Nov 16 recording
[17:44])
- TAR Q8: Institution's own Threat Assessment classified grievance-filing as "retaliatory
harm" — treating protected petitioning as evidence of dangerousness (TAC ¶58)
D-3. Hearing Asymmetry
Procedure
University
Plaintiff
Witnesses authorized
18 (10 testified)
0
Testimony time
~10 hours
~30 minutes
Late witness additions
Erwin added morning-of:
"I'm going to allow"
Neuropsychologist denied:
"university did not have time
to identify rebuttal witness"
Wilson examination
~80 minutes (against stated
30-min limit)
Gibson: "you have 20 more
minutes" for all remaining
25
questioning
Objections
University raised procedural
points throughout
"Parties shall not make
objections"
Gibson stated at the hearing's outset that any exception "shall be applied equally both
parties." The hearing record shows otherwise.
26
TAB E: PUBLICATION CHAIN
E-1. Publication Channels (200+ Documented Recipients)
Channel
Recipients
Date
Forbes Covenant Branch
Email
30+ campus personnel
Nov 4, 2023
BOLO Campus Posting
Campus-wide
Nov 4, 2023
BOLO Clinical Sites
UMC, Covenant staff
Nov 2023
Bates Email to grievance
targets
"He has been removed... due
to his social media"
Dec 5, 2023
Forbes "VACATION" Email
Class distribution lists (TAC
¶121)
Jan 7, 2024
UMC Hospital Poster
"If anyone sees Kevin Bass at
UMC to contact security
immediately"
Nov 2023
Criminal trespass warning
TTU Police enforcement
Nov 4, 2023
Parchment transcript
verifications
Third-party
schools/employers
Oct 2025+
Third-party social media
Public (Discord, X)
Jan 2024+
Forbes's January 7, 2024 broadcast: "We are one student lighter than last week, and I
hope we can all breathe a sigh of relief... just check his Twitter." In the same email, Forbes
announced: "Dr. Nunez is no longer the Assistant Vice Dean on our campus... I am extremely
excited to announce Dr. Jennifer Wilson has replaced him!!" The juxtaposition linked
Wilson's career advancement to the outcome she helped produce — Wilson generated five of six
professionalism evaluations, served as one of the Board's two most relied-upon witnesses, and
received a promotion announced in the same message celebrating Plaintiff's dismissal (TAC
¶121). Forbes attempted to recall this email.
E-2. Per-Official Stigmatizing Publication
Defendant
Stigmatizing
Act
Contemporaneous Date
Private Statement
27
Source
Williams
Signed
emergency
removal
triggering
BOLO to 200+
recipients
"I've never sensed
threat or danger";
"People shouldn't
overreact to your
tweets"
Nov 4 / Nov 5,
2023
FAC ¶34;
recording
[01:49:04],
[00:53:29]
Forbes
Covenant
Branch
exclusion email
to 30+ personnel
following TAT
meeting
"more of a threat to Nov 4, 2023 /
her career and not Aug 2023
an overt physical
threat"
FAC ¶35A;
TAC ¶118
Forbes
"One student
lighter... check
his Twitter"
broadcast to
~200 students
(attempted
recall). Same
email
announced
Wilson's
promotion: "Dr.
Nunez is no
longer the
Assistant Vice
Dean... I am
extremely
excited to
announce Dr.
Jennifer Wilson
has replaced
him!!" —
linking Wilson's
career
advancement to
the outcome she
helped produce
Knew Fell (TAR)
found no threat;
deliberately
withheld from
students
("platform... wasn't
fair"). Wilson
promotion
juxtaposition
telegraphs reward
structure for
participating in
Plaintiff's removal
Jan 7 / Nov 7,
2023
TAC ¶121;
FERPA records
p. 53
Cobbs
Distributed
BOLO campuswide;
coordinated
threat
assessment
meeting
"It is not a dispute
that he has a right
to say whatever he
wishes"
Nov 4 / Aug 22,
2023
FAC ¶34; Aug
2023 document
28
Bates
"He has been
"No threat to you
removed... due
specifically" — in
to his social
the same email
media" — to
grievance targets
+ "do not
forward"
Dec 5, 2023
TAC ¶120
Wilson
Filed
misconduct
report
recommending
"suspension or
dismissal" 5
weeks pre-tweet
"It doesn't feel that
it's a malicious
type of
unprofessional
behavior... I don't
think you're
walking and doing
things on
purpose"
Sept 29 / Oct 13,
2023
IR00000505;
recording
Trotter
Administered
conduct process;
presented binary
"withdraw or
hearing"
ultimatum
Promised
consolidation
"provides you the
best due process"
and "protections
for you" — then
administered
hearing with
objection ban,
expert exclusion,
and reversed
hearing order
Nov 16 / Dec 11, Recording;
2023
Plaintiff's
hearing review
notes
Gibson
Presided over
hearing;
excluded
neuropsych
expert; banned
objections
"There is a First
Amendment
issues related to
someone's free
speech" —
acknowledged
constitutional
dimension, then
proceeded
Dec 11, 2023
Plaintiff's
hearing review
notes
Justyna
Emergency
removal
determination:
"threats against
another
student"
Sole "credible
evidence" cited =
the Nov 3 tweet.
No specific student
identified.
Nov 4, 2023
TAC ¶112
DeToledo
Dismissal letter
terminating
Informed by
Forbes/Williams
Dec 29, 2023 /
Defs' Ex. 10;
29
enrollment
thesame
sameday;
day;
| |
enrollment | the
Nov 7, 2023
email chain
escalated to
President
| Nov 7, 2023 | email chain |
President
escalated to
30
30
TAB F: MASTER CHRONOLOGY AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
F-1. Chronology
Bass v. TTUHSC, Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.)
Phase 1: Speech Surveillance Begins (2020)
Date
Event
Significance
Counts
Aug 24, 2020
Berk "Free speech
issue??" email —
flags Plaintiff's
Twitter posts; notes
Plaintiff had NOT
used school's name;
references "threat
assessment meeting";
describes concern as
"PR issue" not safety
First documented
speech surveillance;
explicit
acknowledgment of
constitutional
protection
Count 5, QI defeat
Sep 14, 2020
Williams references
Plaintiff's
"misbehavior on
social media"
Continuation of
surveillance pattern
Count 5
Late 2020
Schneider (GSBS
Dean): "He hasn't
posted anything too
problematic...
following up with
him next week would
be a good plan"
(FERPA Doc 1012)
Sustained
institutional
monitoring regime —
Dean personally
cataloguing tweet
content
Count 5, QI
Phase 2: Protected Speech & Grievances (2021-2023)
Date
Event
Significance
Counts
2021-2023
Plaintiff publishes
Newsweek article;
public commentary
on COVID-19
policies; files
multiple formal
grievances; requests
Protected activities
predating retaliation
Count 5, Count 6
31
disability
accommodations. 6
of 7 grievances
rejected — all those
filed against faculty.
Feb 2023
Williams: "obviously
protected speech...
appropriate response"
Explicit 1A
acknowledgment
BEFORE escalation
Count 5, QI defeat
Apr 26, 2023
Trotter: "I will help
collect more
information" — 7
MONTHS before
tweet
Documentation
campaign
Count 5, Count 3
May 22, 2023
Classmate emailed
administrator about
Plaintiff's
"MedTwitter"
presence (84K
followers); same day,
Cobbs forwarded to
Berk and Williams:
"Need to discuss..."
Dean-level
mobilization on
speech — 5.5 months
pre-tweet
Count 5, QI
May 23, 2023
Berk emailed
Williams, Cobbs,
Islam: "At our
meeting can we
discuss Kevin Bass
and review our
guidelines on
professionalism...
also what clerkship
he is on"
Senior administrators
convened to discuss a
student's Twitter and
determine clinical
assignment
Count 5, Count 3, QI
Jun 14, 2023
Plaintiff preemptively Chilling effect
locks social media: "I already operating
locked my social
media accounts if that
is any concern" — 5
MONTHS before
tweet
Count 5
Jun 15, 2023
Nunez: "nothing to
do with your social
media" — CC'd
Williams and Forbes
(who knew
Count 5, QI
Concealment of
speech-based motive
32
otherwise)
Mid-2023
Plaintiff requests
incident-level notice
from Williams,
Cobbs, Forbes
Notice defect
documented
Count 3
Jul 21, 2023
Forbes: "No specifics
will be given"
Notice defect by
Defendants' own
email
Count 3
Aug 2023
Forbes: "more of a
threat to her career
and not an overt
physical threat"
Forbes knew Plaintiff
not dangerous
Count 4, Count 5
Post-Aug 8, 2023
Erwin coaching
notes: "He seems to
be taking his First
Amendment rights to
make an idiot of
himself" —
professionalism
coach admits
constitutional rights
at stake
Viewpoint
discrimination in
remediation
Count 5, QI
Aug 22, 2023
Cobbs: "not a
dispute... right to say
whatever he wishes.
However as a matter
of professionalism..."
Conscious plan to
circumvent 1A
Count 5, Count 3, QI
Sep 7, 2023
Williams: "Draft for
appeal decision" for
SPPCC appeal —
same day Plaintiff
won appeal
Charging admin
drafted appellate
authority's decision
— structural roleblurring
Count 3
Sep 2, 2023
Williams: "We have
no problems with
your tweets" — 63
days before removal
Explicit approval
before citing tweets
for removal
Count 5, QI
(CRITICAL)
Sep 29, 2023
Wilson files
misconduct report
recommending
"suspension or
dismissal" — 5
WEEKS before tweet
Recommendation
predates precipitating
event
Count 5, Count 3
33
Phase 3: The November 2023 Crisis
Date
Event
Significance
Counts
Nov 3, 2023
Plaintiff posts
philosophical tweet
— no names, no
threats
Protected speech
Count 5
Nov 3-4, 2023
Williams checks
"NO" on terroristic
threats
Own form contradicts Count 4, QI
BOLO
Nov 4, 2023
Emergency Removal
— 24 HOURS after
tweet
Temporal proximity
Count 3, Count 5
Nov 4, 2023
BOLO: "threatening
statements," "call 911
for life-or-death"
False dangerousness
characterization
Count 4, Count 7
Nov 4, 2023
Forbes exclusion
email to 30+
Covenant Branch
personnel
Publication to clinical Count 4, Count 5
affiliates
Nov 4, 2023
Criminal Trespass
Warning — enforced
~1 year
"Plus" deprivation
Count 3, Count 4
Nov 2023
BOLO at UMC
hospital
Third-party
dissemination
Count 4, Count 7
Dec 5, 2023
Bates: "removed...
due to social media...
no threat to you
specifically"
Direct causation +
no-threat admission
Count 5, Count 4
Nov 5, 2023
Williams: "never
sensed threat";
"pretty extreme";
"free speech is free
speech"; "only once
before"
Multiple admissions
Counts 3-5, QI
Nov 9, 2023
Trotter: "Someone
above... made the
decision on behalf of
everyone else"
Unilateral decision
Count 3, Count 5
34
Phase 4: The December 2023 Hearing
Date
Event
Significance
Counts
Dec 6, 2023
Neuropsych eval
recommends
communication
supports
Expert
recommendations
suppressed
Count 1, Count 2
Dec 8, 2023
Counsel emails Board Knowledge
Chair with diagnoses established
Count 1, Count 2,
Count 6
Dec 8, 2023
Korinek: "not a
danger to anyone";
"confirmation bias"
Internal warning
ignored
Count 3, Count 4, QI
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing structure
reversed morning-of
Broken promise,
manipulation
Count 3
Dec 11, 2023
No SDS
accommodation
determination
Proceeded without
required process
Count 1, Count 2
Dec 11, 2023
Gibson grants 4 midhearing
accommodations
Proves
accommodation was
possible
Count 1, Count 2
Dec 11, 2023
Neuropsychologist
excluded as "outside
scope"
Key evidence
suppressed
Count 1-3
Dec 11, 2023
18 authorized admin
witnesses (10
testified) vs. 0 for
Plaintiff
Structural unfairness
Count 3
Dec 11, 2023
Fell: "Post? None.
Nothing."
No threat
Count 4, Count 5, QI
Dec 11, 2023
Erwin: "probably on
the spectrum of
"
Institutional disability Count 1, Count 2
awareness
Phase 5: Post-Hearing (2024)
Date
Event
Significance
Counts
Jan 1, 2024
Third party publicly
posts expulsion
before official notice
FERPA violation
Count 4
Jan 7, 2024
Forbes: "one student
lighter... breathe a
Consciousness of
wrongdoing
Count 4, Count 5
35
sigh of relief... check
his Twitter" —
attempted recall
Jan 11, 2024
Appeal denial (Kruse, "Plus" finalized
designated by
D'Agostino)
Count 4
Feb 12, 2024
Title IV Return:
$24,316.56
Economic damages
Damages
Nov 30, 2023
St. James: "unable to
help you continue"
First transfer
rejection
Count 7, standing
Apr-May 2024
McSween refuses
Dean's letter
Cannot transfer to
another medical
school
Count 7
Jun 2024
St. Matthew's transfer
rejected after
transcript disclosure
Second transfer
rejection
Count 7, standing
Sep 24, 2024
CTW still enforced
— police warn of
arrest
Nearly one year later
Count 3, Count 4
Phase 6: FERPA Discovery & Federal Filing (2025-2026)
Date
Event
Significance
Counts
Oct 19, 2025
Name-clearing
hearing request — no
hearing provided
Explicit request
denied
Count 7
Dec 11, 2025
Federal action filed
Procedural
—
Jan 5-8, 2026
FERPA inspection:
~1,500 documents.
No rescission found.
TTUHSC violated
45-day deadline
(~120 days).
New evidence
All counts
Key Temporal Patterns
1. Speech Surveillance: 3+ years (Aug 2020 → Nov 2023)
2. Predetermination: 7+ months (Apr 2023 → Dec 2023)
3. Retaliation Speed: 24 hours (Tweet → Removal → BOLO)
36
4. CTW Duration: ~1 year (Nov 4, 2023 → enforced Sep 24, 2024)
5. Ongoing Harm: Continuing (transcript, BOLO unrescinded, no name-clearing, Dean's
letter refused, two rejections)
F-2. Discrete Acts Within Limitations Period
This action was filed December 11, 2025. The following sixteen discrete adverse acts fall
within the two-year window:
#
Date
Adverse Act
Source
1
Dec 11, 2023
14-hour hearing
outcome (Gibson
presiding)
TAC ¶51; Plaintiff's
hearing review notes
2
Dec 27, 2023
Board findings letter
(unanimous
dismissal)
Defs' Ex. 8
3
Dec 29, 2023
DeToledo dismissal
letter
Defs' Ex. 10
4
Jan 7, 2024
Forbes broadcast
email ("check his
Twitter")
TAC ¶121
5
Jan 11, 2024
Appeal denial (Kruse, Defs' Ex. 11
designated by
D'Agostino)
6
Jan 12, 2024
Dismissal memo to
seven officials
Defs' Ex. 12
7
Feb 12, 2024
Title IV financial
termination
($24,316.56 balance
assessed after
$20,118.11
scholarship
cancellation and
$3,524.00 loan
return; escalated to
$30,458.20 in
collections by Dec
2025)
TAC ¶149
8
Apr-May 2024
McSween refuses
TAC ¶144
37
Dean's letter
9
May 2024
Continued tuition
charges (expelled
student billed)
TAC ¶150
10
Jun 2024
St. Matthew's transfer
rejection
TAC ¶152(b)
11
Sep 24, 2024
CTW actively
enforced—TTU
Police Captain
Hinkle: "you are still
under an active
criminal trespass...
violations could
result in your arrest"
TAC ¶127; email
records
12
~Nov 4, 2024
CTW expiration
(yearlong
enforcement)
TAC ¶127
13
Oct 3, 2025
Transcript system
notification from
McSween
TAC ¶124
14
Oct 16, 2025
Transcript issued
with "Non-Academic
Dismissal" notation
TAC ¶124
15
Oct 19, 2025
Name-clearing
hearing request
denied/ignored
TAC ¶156
16
Jan 5-8, 2026
FERPA inspection
reveals BOLO never
rescinded
TAC ¶¶120, 154
F-3. Predetermination Timeline
Date
Event
Source
Apr 26, 2023
Trotter: "I will help collect
more information" — 7
months before tweet
TAC ¶55(a)
June 26, 2023
Forbes emailed Trotter: "Just
sending a few assessment
ahead of our meeting
tomorrow" — feeding
evaluations 5 months before
tweet
FERPA Doc 0887
38
Jul 11, 2023
Forbes was "frantic" to gather
documents — 4 months
before tweet
TAC ¶55(b)
Aug 4-8, 2023
Forbes personally drafted
SPPCC letter. Metadata
shows Forbes AND Cobbs
edited. "Specific behaviors"
section absent in earlier draft;
singular "event" changed to
plural "events."
FERPA Doc 0436→0438
Sep 7, 2023
Williams circulated "Draft for TAC ¶55; FERPA Doc 949
appeal decision" for SPPCC
appeal — same day Plaintiff
won that appeal
Sep 29, 2023
Wilson filed her second
misconduct report in eleven
days (IR00000505),
recommending "suspension
or dismissal" — 5 weeks
before tweet
Nov 4, 2023 (3:50 PM)
Forbes emailed 30+ Covenant TAC ¶118
Branch personnel: "Under
further notice, please do not
allow Kevin Bass into the
Covenant Branch office" —
same day as TAT meeting, 37
days before hearing
Nov 9, 2023
Trotter offered binary
"withdraw or hearing"
ultimatum
Nov 3-4, 2023
Williams confirmed Cobbs
Multi-defendant coordination
was "involved in the Threat
Assessment meeting on Zoom
when they made the decision"
Nov 10, 2023
Korinek: "I did NOT attend
the meeting in which the
decision was made... My
Associate attended, but only
listened to the proceedings.
She did not give any input"
— mental health professional
had NO input
39
TAC ¶55(c)
Nov 16 recording, [17:44]
TAC ¶57
TAB G: DOC. 27 VS. COMPLAINT COMPARISON
G-1. Outside-the-Pleadings Material
No.
Doc. 27
Location
What
Defendants
Assert
What the
Complaint Says
Assessment
A1
Pages 3-4
Four misconduct
complaints
described in
detail: "expressing
romantic feelings
toward a
resident,"
"sending photos
of his own
diarrhea and
vomit," etc.
The Complaint
Compare FAC
references the
¶¶27, 29 with
complaints but
Doc. 27 at 3-4.
does not
describe their
content. (FAC ¶¶
27, 29.)
A2
Page 7
"Plaintiff never
again inquired
about the
application's
status."
The Complaint
does not allege
this.
Not alleged in
FAC.
A3
Page 9
"Arguably
Plaintiff had three
years to request
disability
accommodations."
The Complaint
alleges
constructive
knowledge 7+
months before
diagnosis. (FAC
¶25; TAC ¶¶
39(a)-(e).)
Compare FAC
¶25; TAC
¶¶39(a)-(e).
A4
Pages 3-6
Entire "Factual
Background"
constructs
narrative from 12
defense exhibits.
The 12(b)(6)
standard tests the
Complaint's
allegations —
not a defense
counternarrative.
Narrative
sourced from
defense exhibits,
not FAC.
G-2. Misrepresentations of the Complaint's Content
No.
Doc. 27
What
What the
40
Assessment
Location
Defendants
Assert
Complaint
Actually Says
B1
Page 16 n.5
"Plaintiff's own
allegations
demonstrate"
speech including
"crude personal
communications
sent directly to
faculty members
involving bodily
fluids."
The words "bodily,"
"crude," "diarrhea,"
and "vomit" appear
ZERO times in the
FAC.
Characterization
comes from Defs'
own Exhibits 2 and
8.
Words not found
in FAC; source
is Defs' Exs. 2 &
8.
B2
Page 9
"Plaintiff
provides no
evidence or
claim that...
anyone... had
any knowledge
about his alleged
disability."
The Complaint
alleges constructive
knowledge: MRFA
evaluations, Erwin
assessment, Wilson
recognition. (FAC
¶25; TAC ¶¶ 39(a)(e).)
Compare FAC
¶25; TAC
¶¶39(a)-(e).
B3
Page 14
Plaintiff "does
not plead the
publication of a
materially false
statement by any
specific
Defendant."
The Complaint
names Forbes and
identifies specific
publications with
dates and recipients.
(FAC ¶¶35A, 34.)
Compare FAC
¶¶35A, 34.
B4
Pages 15-16
Plaintiff "does
not identify with
any specificity
what speech"
triggered
actions.
The Complaint
quotes the
November 3, 2023
tweet verbatim.
(FAC ¶31A.)
Compare FAC
¶31A.
B5
Page 18
"There are no
specific
allegations that
any of the
individuals had
any retaliatory
animus."
The Complaint
alleges Cobbs
workaround,
Williams
"obviously
protected speech"
then removal,
Forbes "check his
Twitter," Berk 2020
surveillance.
Compare FAC
¶¶32, 33, 37.
B6
Pages 8, 12-13
Plaintiff
The Complaint
Compare TAC
41
B7
Page 14
"participated in
the disciplinary
hearing...
represented by
counsel...
presented his
position" —
proof of
adequate
process.
alleges Gibson
¶¶63-83, 145,
"banned
148.
contemporaneous
objections,"
counsel's "questions
[were] submitted in
writing," Gibson
ruled "I'm not going
to allow that
testimony"
(neuropsychologist),
excluded
accommodation
evidence as "outside
scope," and applied
"time limits and
sequencing
asymmetrically" —
~10 hrs adverse vs.
~30 min defense, 18
authorized
witnesses to 0.
(TAC ¶¶63-83, 145,
148.)
Plaintiff "does
not plead a
separate 'plus'
deprivation."
The Complaint
Compare TAC
pleads four
¶¶120, 122, 127independent status
128.
changes: (1)
emergency removal,
(2) Criminal
Trespass Warning
enforced ~1 year
with police escort
for daycare pickup,
(3) BOLO
disseminated to
200+ recipients
including nonTTUHSC affiliates,
(4) transcript
notation via
Parchment
verifications.
Bates's own email:
"removed from all
TTUHSC and
42
affiliated clinical
sites under criminal
trespass." (TAC
¶¶120, 127-128,
122.)
G-3. Internal Inconsistencies in Doc. 27 and Defendants' Exhibits
No.
Doc. 27
Location
What
Defendants
Assert
Contradicting
Evidence
Note
C1
Throughout
Frame as
"academic
discipline."
Defs' own
Exhibit 8 labels
sanction "NonAcademic
Dismissal."
See Ex. 8
caption.
C2
Pages 2-3 n.1 vs.
rest
State 12(b)(6)
limits
consideration to
Complaint.
By page 3,
introduce
misconduct
detail from
Exhibit 2; by
page 16,
fabricate a
Complaint
citation.
Compare Doc.
27 n.1 with pp.
3, 16.
C3
Pages 4-5, 12-13
Gibson presented
as neutral
"Hearing
Officer."
Gibson was
TTUHSC's paid
employment
lawyer (OCC
contracts,
$525/hr,
$393K+). Never
disclosed in
Doc. 27.
OCC contract
records; not
disclosed.
C4
Pages 4, 12
"14-hour hearing"
proves adequate
process (cited 4
times).
~10+ hours
administration
witnesses; ~30
min for Plaintiff.
Zero defense
witnesses.
Compare
hearing
transcript time
allocations.
C5
Page 10 n.4
TRO withdrawal
proves no
standing.
Withdrawing
See FAC ¶¶34A,
interim relief
56-58.
does not concede
43
absence of
ongoing injury.
(FAC ¶¶ 34A,
56-58.)
C6
Pages 18-19
Primary authority
is Esfeller v.
O'Keefe, 391 F.
App'x 337 (5th
Cir. 2010). Cited
3 times.
Unpublished per
curiam with no
precedential
value.
Unpublished;
5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
C7
Ex. 8 (Findings)
Board Findings
label Complaint
headings as "#2"
and "#3."
The Grievance
#5 crossreferences
within Ex. 8
reverse which
complaint is #2
and which is #3.
See Ex. 8
internal crossreferences.
C8
Pages 19-20
Count 6
addressed in
Counts 6-7
section.
Defendants
address only
sovereign
immunity —
nothing about
ADA retaliation
merits.
Merits of 42
U.S.C. §12203
not addressed.
C9
Throughout
No mention of
Pickett v.
TTUHSC, 37
F.4th 1013 (5th
Cir. 2022).
The Fifth Circuit
previously
warned this
same institution
about lack of
diligence.
Pickett not cited
by Defendants.
C10
Page 12
Cites "Student
Handbook (20242025)" (Ex. 9).
Exhibit 9's own
cover page reads
"2023-2024
Student
Handbook."
See Ex. 9 cover
page.
C11
Page 2 n.2
Footnote 2 labels
Ex. 1 a "Hearing
Notice" dated
"November 9,
2023."
Ex. 1 is
captioned
"Notice of
Consolidation"
(Nov. 9). The
actual "Hearing
Notice" is Ex. 2,
dated November
16, 2023.
Compare Ex. 1
caption with
Doc. 27 n.2.
44
C12
Pages 3-4
Describes
grievance
timeframe as
"August 1
through October
27, 2023."
Defendants' own
Exhibit 8 lists a
grievance dated
November 10,
2023 — outside
the stated
window.
C13
Pages 3-4 vs.
Exs. 1, 2, 8
No consistent
count of "Below
Expectations"
evaluations.
Three-way
Compare Exs. 1,
mismatch: Ex. 1 2, 8 counts.
lists 6; Ex. 2 lists
5; Ex. 8 lists 6.
C14
Ex. 1 vs. Ex. 2
Ex. 1 identifies
"Fernandez" as
filing Complaint
#1.
Ex. 2 identifies
"Conser as Title
IX Mandatory
Reporter" as the
filer of the same
complaint.
C15
Page 17
Cites "Exhibit 4,
at pp. 3–17" for
"unprofessional
personal
communications
directed to
faculty."
Exhibit 4 is HSC See Ex. 4 (two
OP 77.14, a two- pages); searched
page disability
all Exs. 1–12.
accommodations
policy. Pages 3–
17 do not exist.
The phrase
"unprofessional
personal
communications
directed to
faculty" appears
zero times in
Exhibit 4, zero
times in Exhibit
2 (the 18-page
complaint
compilation
most likely
intended), and
zero times in
every other
exhibit attached
to Doc. 27. The
characterization
was fabricated
and the citation
points nowhere.
45
See Ex. 8
grievance list.
Compare Ex. 1
with Ex. 2.
C16
Page 5
Cites "Part
II.F.4.o" for
"forwarding the
Report to the
Dean."
The forwarding
step is Part
II.F.4.n.
Defendants' own
Exhibit 8
correctly cites
"Part II.F.4.n."
Compare Doc.
27 at 5 with Ex.
8.
C17
Ex. 8 vs. Exs. 3,
6, 7
Exhibit 8
identifies the
neuropsychologist
as "Andrew
Wierzchowski,
PhD."
Exhibits 3, 6,
and 7 all identify
the same
evaluator as
"Andrea
Wierzchowski,
PhD."
Compare Ex. 8
with Exs. 3, 6, 7.
C18
Ex. 3 vs. Exs. 6,
7
Exhibit 3
references the
neuropsych
evaluation as
"dated Dec. 8,
2023."
Exhibits 6 and 7
list "Dates of
Evaluation:
12/06/2023."
Compare Ex. 3
with Exs. 6, 7.
46
TAB H: INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES
H-1. Speech Protections
TTUHSC Student Handbook (2022-2023 edition for events through summer 2023; 20232024 edition for November-December 2023 events). The speech protection provisions below are
identical in both editions; the 2023-2024 version is Defendants' own Exhibit 9 (Doc. 27-9).
Policy Provision
Verbatim Text
Significance
Handbook Part VII.A.1
"TTUHSC recognizes
freedom of speech and
expression as a fundamental
right and seeks to ensure
free, robust, and uninhibited
debate and deliberation by
students enrolled at
TTUHSC"
TTUHSC's own
characterization of speech
rights
Handbook Part VII.A.3
"In the event of any conflict
between this Section VII(A)
and any other provision of
this Handbook, the
provisions of this Section
shall control"
Free expression trumps
professionalism provisions
Handbook Part II.D.5.f
"Actions involving freedom
of expression are covered in
Parts VII and VIII of this
Handbook and governed by
O.P. 61.07"
Expression carve-out from
misconduct code
TTUS Reg 07.04 §9
"Nothing in this Regulation System-level speech
may be construed to limit or protection
infringe on a person's right
to freedom of speech or
expression protected by the
First Amendment"
TTUS Reg 07.04 §4.c
Exceptions limited to
"defamation, unlawful
harassment, incitement to
unlawful activity, obscenity,
or threats to engage in
unlawful activity"
47
Narrow exceptions — none
apply to Plaintiff's tweet
H-2. Hearing Officer Neutrality
Handbook Definition 23 (Student Conduct Board):
"All persons serving on the Student Conduct Board must acknowledge an ability
to serve objectively and shall decline to serve if there is a conflict of interest or
an appearance of a conflict of interest with either the accused or the
complainant."
HSC OP 77.13 §5.d(1) (parallel FERPA hearing policy):
Hearing officers "must have no direct interest in the outcome of the case and shall
decline to serve if a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest,
exists."
OP 77.13 §5.d(2):
"Advisors and/or attorneys for the Parties are not permitted to speak or
participate directly in the hearing."
Handbook Part II.F.4.i:
Advisors are "not permitted to speak or to participate directly or indirectly."
H-3. Disability Accommodation
Policy
Provision
Effect
TTUS Reg 07.11 §4.a.i
Individuals with disabilities
"have a right to reasonable
accommodations"
System-level right — not
discretionary
TTUS Reg 07.11 §4.a.ii
Student is responsible for
"initiating the
accommodation process in a
timely manner"
Plaintiff initiated Dec 8 —
the first business day after his
Dec 6 neuropsych evaluation.
The institution's own process
(HSC OP 77.14) required
weeks to complete; the
hearing was 1.5 business days
later.
TTUS Reg 07.11 §4.b.v
University "will make
reasonable modifications to
the environment, policy, or
practice, and/or provide
reasonable auxiliary aids or
services"
Affirmative obligation
TTUS Reg 07.11 §7
"The University will
maintain the confidentiality
of all medical records
Defendants filed Plaintiff's
unredacted
neuropsychological
48
concerning employees and
students"
evaluation on the public
docket (Doc. 27-7) —
stamped "Confidential — For
Professional Use Only" —
without requesting sealing or
redaction
HSC OP 77.14 §3.b
LOA is "the universityapproved mechanism" for
accommodations; file
processing requires "up to
two weeks"; implementation
requires "1 week (5 business
days)" after LOA issuance
Institution designed a process
requiring 3-4 weeks
minimum, then scheduled a
hearing that left one partial
business day (Dec 8 Friday
PM to Dec 11 Monday AM).
The institution controlled
both the accommodation
timeline and the hearing date.
HSC OP 77.14 §4
Appeals of denied
accommodations go to "the
Associate Provost for Student
Affairs. The decision of the
Associate Provost for Student
Affairs is the final ruling"
D'Agostino (Provost) had
authority to override SDS
inaction
HSC OP 51.04
Implementing policy for Reg
07.11; directs disability
complaints to SDS (806-7431926)
Confirms SDS as designated
office
H-4. Anti-Retaliation
TTUS Regulation 07.10 (Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment) §5.e:
"Retaliation against a person who opposes a discriminatory practice, reports a
potential violation under this regulation, assists someone with a report of a
violation, or participates in any manner in an investigation or in the resolution of
a complaint made under this regulation is strictly prohibited and will not be
tolerated. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to threats, intimidation,
reprisals, and/or adverse actions related to an individual's employment or
education."
H-5. Academic vs. Disciplinary Classification
Source
Classification
Verbatim Text
Defs' Ex. 8
"Non-Academic Dismissal"
Board's own sanction label
Handbook Part II.G.2.g
"Non-Academic Dismissal"
"Dismissal of the student
49
from their current program...
The student's transcript will
reflect the nature of the
dismissal (Non-Academic
Dismissal)"
Regents Ch. 05 §05.05
Dismissal listed separately
from academics
"The board shall not serve as
a hearing or appellate body
for appeals of individual
decisions relating to
admission, academic
progress, disciplinary
measures, dismissal, or other
such matters" — "academic
progress" and "dismissal" are
listed as distinct categories,
not subcategories of each
other
TTUS Reg 07.10 §5.c
Dismissal = policy, not
academic
Regulation "does not apply to
complaints related to a
student's academic
program or decisions
rendered pursuant to an
established University
policy (e.g., dismissal,
suspension)" — the "or"
separates two exclusion
categories: academic program
matters on one side, policybased dismissals on the other
Handbook Part II.F
"Disciplinary Procedures"
Entire section heading;
governs the conduct hearing
Plaintiff underwent
Nov 9 Consolidation Notice
Lawyer-designed hearing
structure
The consolidation notice
originated from General
Counsel Renee Posey, was
forwarded to Dr. Conser, then
transmitted to Student
Conduct Administrator
Trotter for delivery to
Plaintiff (TAC ¶64). The
hearing structure—which
stripped Plaintiff's separate
grievance hearings, informal
resolution rights, and
committee selection—was
50
designed by institutional
counsel, not by academic
administrators exercising
pedagogical judgment
A word-count analysis of the Board's own Exhibit 8: 87 disciplinary-framework
references — including "misconduct" (15 times), "Code of Conduct" (26 times), "violated" (10
times), and "Non-Academic Dismissal" (3 times), plus additional terms such as "complaint,"
"unprofessional," "sanctions," and "disciplinary" — versus zero academic-performance
references (no GPA, board examination scores, or course grades). The hearing notice cited
exclusively Code of Conduct sections, not academic standards. Handbook Part II.F.1 states
"these proceedings are not intended for grading and promotions issues."
H-5a. Institutional Counsel Control — Chronological Chain
Academic deference presupposes academic judgment. The following timeline
demonstrates that institutional counsel—not academic administrators—controlled every decision
point from appeal through dismissal.
Date
Event
Lawyer
Academic Role
TAC ¶
Feb 1, 2023
Speech concern
flagged
internally
Berk: "I think we
should discuss
with legal"
(FERPA Doc
1004)
Berk and
Williams
identified speech
as protected but
routed to counsel
¶134(b)
Aug 2023
Board of
Regents
emergency
policy changes
while Plaintiff's
case active
General Counsel
recommended
changes: added
"loses legal
protection,"
removed speechmonitoring team,
added legal
harassment
definition
Board adopted
¶75
counsel's
recommendations
Aug 10, 2023
Plaintiff's
Institutional
Forbes reported;
51
¶138
SPPCC appeal
extension
request "was
punted to legal"
counsel made the
decision
did not decide
Nov 3-4, 2023
Emergency
removal signed
by Williams
—
Williams signed
removal
Nov 9, 2023
Consolidation
notice stripping
separate
hearings,
informal
resolution, and
committee
selection
General Counsel
Conser
Posey authored the forwarded;
notice
Trotter delivered
¶64, ¶132
Nov 13, 2023
Plaintiff filed
state court
lawsuit; Cobbs
directed Erwin
to cease all
contact
Cobbs: "all further
correspondence
must go through
[legal]"
Erwin
(professionalism
coach/support
person) cut off
from Plaintiff by
legal directive
¶205
Nov 16, 2023
Pre-hearing
meeting on
process structure
Posey present,
made binding
admissions re:
causation and
statutory
framework
Trotter identified
"someone above
Student Affairs
and Curriculum"
as decisionmaker
¶132
Nov–Dec 2023
Campus ban
selectively
enforced to
block witness
recruitment
Police officer
reported denial
"was made at the
behest of
TTUHSC's
lawyers"
Daycare,
¶128A
Trotter-Conser
compromise
hearing plan
abandoned
morning-of
Trotter promised
on recording (Nov
16): "First we hear
your grievances...
that provides you
the most
protection."
Conser and Trotter
designed a
sectioned
Academic
administrators'
proposed
structure was not
implemented
Dec 11, 2023
52
¶90
,
approved; only
defense
preparation
blocked
¶53
structure. On the
morning of the
hearing, the
format changed
without notice —
grievances were
deferred until after
~10 hours of
adverse testimony.
The hearing
officer (retained
outside counsel
Gibson) ran the
proceeding under
the new format
Dec 11, 2023
Fourteen-hour
consolidated
hearing
Gibson ($393K+
in contracts)
presided; excluded
accommodation
evidence; barred
neuropsychologist;
banned
contemporaneous
objections;
permitted zero
defense witnesses
Board members
present but
Gibson
controlled all
procedural and
evidentiary
decisions
Dec 11, 2023
Board
deliberations
Gibson remained
present during
closed-session
deliberations
despite
announcing that
"all advisors [and]
parties are
excluded." Board
of Regents policy
permits only
voting members
and the "Resource
Person" —
defined as "a
trained University
staff member."
Gibson was
retained outside
counsel, not a staff
The institution's
¶53A
paid litigation
counsel shaped
findings from
inside
deliberations
while the fairness
advocate was
excluded. The
contrast is the
point: Gibson
(paid adversary)
inside; Trotter
(procedural
conscience)
outside
53
¶¶48-52, ¶147148
member, yet he
functioned as
Resource Person
(wrote the 14-page
determination
letter). Gibson's
own hearing-day
language — "we
can communicate
the results" —
confirms he
expected to be
inside the room.
Trotter (Student
Conduct
Administrator) —
the one
administrator who
had designed the
compromise
hearing structure
(¶53), showed
Plaintiff
procedural
consideration, and
was most familiar
with the full scope
of complaints,
grievances, and
Plaintiff's
circumstances —
sought to
participate in
deliberations and
was refused.
Dec 29, 2023
Dismissal
decision
DeToledo
(Interim Dean)
signed
—
¶54
At eleven of twelve decision points, institutional counsel either made the decision,
designed the framework, or directed the academic administrators' actions. The sole exception—
Williams's emergency removal—was itself prompted by a tweet that General Counsel Posey
later identified as the cause ("the outcome of the tweet... is the reason he is not allowed on
54
campus right now"). The pattern is continuous: from the first internal discussion of Plaintiff's
speech (Feb 2023) through the final hearing (Dec 2023), every inflection point was controlled
by, routed to, or decided at the direction of institutional or retained counsel. Courts defer to
academic judgment because educators possess expertise courts lack. Regents of Univ. of
Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985). Where the record shows lawyers, not educators,
controlled the process, there is no academic judgment to which deference applies.
55
TAB J: EXHIBIT INDEX
The exhibits below are numbered for filing purposes (E-001 through E-093). Internal
evidence-tracking numbers (E53–E2697) referenced elsewhere in Plaintiff's work product are
cross-referenced where applicable but are not part of the Court filing.
Category 1: Predetermination / Bias (Count 3)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-001
Sep 7, 2023
Williams email
"Draft for appeal
decision" for
SPPCC appeal
— process
administrator
drafted appellate
decision
3, QI
E-002
Aug 22, 2023
Internal notes
Cobbs
"professionalism
workaround"
blueprint
5, 3, QI
E-003
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing record
Structure
reversed
morning-of
3
E-004
Dec 8, 2023
Korinek letter
"Confirmation
bias" warning
3, 4, QI
Counts
Category 2: "No Threat" Admissions (Counts 4, 5, 7)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
E-010
Nov 5, 2023
Recording
[01:49:04]
Williams: "never 4, 5, 7, QI
sensed threat or
danger"
E-011
Nov 3-4, 2023
Threat
Assessment
Williams: "NO"
on terroristic
threats
4, 5, QI
E-012
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing
testimony
Fell: "Post?
None. Nothing."
4, 5, 7, QI
E-013
Dec 8, 2023
Korinek letter
"not a danger to
4, 5, 7, QI
56
anyone"
E-014
—
Wilson
statement
"Did not
interpret it as a
threat by
myself"
4, 5, QI
E-015
Dec 5, 2023
Bates email
"removed... due 4, 5, QI
to social media...
no threat to you
specifically"
E-016
Aug 2023
Forbes statement
"threat to her
career, not overt
physical threat"
4, 5, QI
E-017
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing
testimony
Erwin: "I don't
take that to be a
threat from you"
4, 5, 7, QI
E-018
Nov/Dec 2023
Frantz support
letter
"no intention to
threaten
anyone";
"remarkable
maturity"
4, 5, 7
Category 3: Protected Speech Admissions (Count 5, QI)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-020
Aug 24, 2020
Berk email
"Free speech
issue??"
5, QI
E-021
Feb 2023
Williams email
"obviously
protected
speech"
5, QI
E-022
Nov 5, 2023
Recording
"Free speech is
free speech"
5, QI
E-023
Dec 11, 2023
Plaintiff's
hearing review
notes
"First
Amendment
issues"
5, QI
E-024
Sep 2, 2023
Williams email
"We have no
problems with
your tweets" —
63 DAYS before
removal
5, QI
(CRITICAL)
57
Category 4: Causation (Count 5)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-030
Dec 5, 2023
Bates email
"due to recent
posts on social
media"
5, 4
E-031
Nov 2023
Observation
Trotter had
Twitter feed
open
5
E-032
Sep 14, 2020
Williams
"misbehavior on
social media"
5
E-033
Apr 26, 2023
Trotter email
"I will help
collect more
information"
5, 3
Category 5: Publication (Counts 4, 7)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-040
Nov 4, 2023
BOLO
"threatening
statements";
"call 911"
4, 7
E-041
Nov 2023
FERPA
UMC poster:
"contact security
immediately"
4, 7
E-042
—
Forbes email
"check his
Twitter"
4, 5
E-043
—
Email records
Forbes
attempted recall
—
consciousness of
wrongdoing
4, 5
E-044
Dec 11, 2023
Fell testimony
Prior case
4, 5
"handled
between school
administrators
and the student...
turned out in the
student's favor.
And no one
knew." Bass
case: "not
handled
58
privately" but
"escalated into
public domain."
Same institution,
opposite
treatment;
differentiating
factor is
Plaintiff's
protected speech
E-045
Through FERPA
1,500 documents No "all clear" or
rescission found
4, 7
Category 6: Hearing Asymmetry (Count 3)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-050
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing record
18 authorized
admin witnesses
(10 testified) vs. 0
for Plaintiff
3
E-051
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing record
~10 hours adverse
vs. ~30 minutes
defense
3
E-052
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing record
Neuropsychologist 1-2, 3
excluded
E-053
Jul 21, 2023
Forbes email
"No specifics will
be given"
3
E-054
Nov 5, 2023
Recording
Plaintiff to
Williams: "not
seemed very
transparent to me"
(undisputed)
3
E-055
Nov 5, 2023
Recording
[01:10:29]
Williams: "That's
just not the way
the process
works"
3
Category 7: Disability / Accommodation (Counts 1-2, 6)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-060
Dec 11, 2023
SDS records
No accommodation
1, 2
59
determination
E-061
Dec 8, 2023
Counsel email
Written notice with
diagnoses
1, 2, 6
E-062
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing record
Gibson denied
1, 2
substantive
accommodations;
offered only
water/snacks/breaks
E-063
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing
testimony
Erwin: "probably
1, 2
"
E-064
Dec 11, 2023
Hearing
testimony
Erwin: "His biggest
emotion is fear"
1, 2
Category 8: Mt. Healthy Defeat (Count 5)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-070
Nov 5, 2023
Recording
Williams:
"pretty extreme"
5
E-071
Nov 5, 2023
Recording
Williams: "only
once before"
5
E-072
Nov 5, 2023
Recording
Williams:
"complaints...
burgeoning
sense of people
feeling
threatened"
5
Category 9: Fabricated/False Allegations (Counts 3, 4, 5)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
Counts
E-080
Jun-Jul 2023
Internal records
Zavala denied
sexual
misconduct
allegation
occurred;
speculated
"someone who
wanted to hurt
me might have
fabricated it";
3, 4, 5
60
Forbes
confirmed
denial; yet
allegation still
used in
professionalism
proceedings
(FERPA Doc
0835). Zavala's
own formal
evaluation 16
days later rated
Plaintiff "meets
expectations"
(FERPA Doc
0542) — official
record
contradicts
informal file
E-081
Post-Nov 3,
2023
Official records
"FAIL for his
Pediatric
clerkship
despite the
numerical
calculation
resulting in a
Pass" — grade
override
occurred
between tweet
and hearing,
manufacturing
adverse
academic record
after speech
event (TAC
¶¶172(c),
188(A)(6))
3, 5
Counts
Category 10: Ongoing Harm / Standing (Counts 2, 7)
Exhibit
Date
Source
Content
E-090
Nov 30, 2023
St. James
"unable to help
7, 2
you continue" —
61
first transfer
rejection
E-091
Jun 2024
St. Matthew's
Transfer rejected
after transcript
disclosure
7, 2
E-092
—
TTUHSC
"we will not
provide a Dean's
letter" — blocks
residency
applications
7, 2
E-093
—
FERPA records
Documents after
~120 days,
violating 45-day
deadline
7
Scope of ongoing harm (TAC ¶¶177A, 211): The "Non-Academic Dismissal" transcript
notation, unrescinded BOLO, and third-party publication to UMC and clinical affiliates create
compounding, ongoing harm beyond the two transfer rejections listed above:
- Medical career foreclosed: Without a Dean's letter, Plaintiff cannot apply to residency
programs, obtain board certification, or practice medicine — the career he trained for
over a decade.
- Public health career impaired: Plaintiff is building a public health startup requiring
institutional collaborations and venture capital funding. The BOLO's dissemination
beyond TTUHSC to affiliated institutions, and the stigmatizing "Non-Academic
Dismissal" label, directly undermine his professional credibility with the institutions and
investors he must engage.
- Stigma is public and unretrievable: Defendants filed Plaintiff's unredacted
neuropsychological evaluation on the public docket (Doc. 27-7). The BOLO was
disseminated to UMC with instructions to "contact security immediately" — for a student
no agency ever charged with any offense. These materials are indexed by legal databases
62
and search engines. Every background check, every internet search of Plaintiff's name,
surfaces these records. Every day they remain public, the harm compounds.
Summary Statistics
- Total Exhibits: 48 (non-sequentially numbered E-001 through E-093; gaps are intentional)
- By Count: Count 1 (8), Count 2 (8), Count 3 (15), Count 4 (18), Count 5 (24), Count 6 (4),
Count 7 (12), QI Defeat (17)
- By Type: Predetermination (4), No-Threat Admissions (9), Speech Admissions (5),
Causation (4), Publication (6), Process Defects (6), Disability (5), Mt. Healthy Defeat (3),
Fabrication (2), Ongoing Harm (4)
Exhibit Compilation Note
The exhibits listed above (E-001 through E-093) will be compiled as separately
tabbed PDF pages with sequential Appendix page numbering. Each exhibit will be
preceded by a cover sheet identifying the exhibit number, date, source, and the
paragraph(s) of the Complaint or Brief that reference it. Exhibits to be filed
include FERPA-inspected records, email communications, hearing materials,
institutional policies, recordings, hearing review notes, and publicly available documents.
63
TAB K: ADDITIONAL FACTUAL RECORD
The following factual content supplements the documentary evidence in Tabs A-J. Each
sub-tab contains dated facts, verbatim quotes, and source references — no legal argument.
K-1. Chilling Effect
Four documented instances of self-censorship before the November 3, 2023 tweet:
Date
Event
Source
June 14, 2023 (5 months
before tweet)
Plaintiff preemptively locked
his social media accounts and
told the institution: "I locked
my social media accounts if
that is any concern. I am
very serious about
succeeding in medical
school." Nunez replied: "this
meeting has nothing to do
with your social media" —
while CC'ing Williams and
Forbes, who both knew
otherwise (Williams had
written "obviously protected
speech" four months earlier).
Email chain
Aug-Oct 2023
Erwin's coaching notes
FERPA review p. 24
document the institution
explicitly demanding Plaintiff
cease social media. Plaintiff
recognized it as "a coercive
request."
Mid-September 2023
Plaintiff told Defendant
Wilson on a recorded call:
"I'm gonna be quiet. A lot
more quiet than I've been...
I feel antisocial and I hate
it." He added: "I just literally
can't afford to get into any
more situations."
Mid-Sept 2023 recording
October 19, 2023 (15 days
before tweet)
Plaintiff emailed Erwin:
"And you mention how
people are reading my
Email to Erwin
64
tweets to establish whether
I meet LCME standards
which means they are being
saved as potential
ammunition at some point."
He asked: "Do you know
what tweets in particular
Williams was referring to?"
K-2. General Counsel Admissions
Two binding institutional admissions by TTUHSC General Counsel Posey:
Date
Statement
Source
November 16, 2023
"The outcome of the tweet
and the perceived threat of
that tweet is the reason he is
not allowed on campus
right now."
Recorded meeting (TAC
¶113)
November 16, 2023
Removal was "although
prompted by the Social
Media post" and was "NOT
accomplished under
Chapter 51" — meaning the
institution bypassed its own
statutory authority for
addressing speech-based
threats.
Hogan letter to D'Agostino
(TAC ¶108)
K-3. Criminal Trespass Warning
The CTW was imposed on or about November 4, 2023, and enforced for approximately
twelve months:
Date
Event
Source
Nov 4, 2023
CTW imposed — zero predeprivation notice, zero
hearing, zero opportunity to
respond
—
Nov 4, 2023 – Nov 2024
Twelve months of
enforcement — Plaintiff
—
65
excluded from all campus
facilities
Sep 24, 2024
TTU Police Captain Hinkle
warned: "you are still under
an active criminal
trespass... violations could
result in your arrest"
TAC ¶127; email records
During CTW
When Plaintiff went to pick
up his three-year-old from the
campus daycare, he was
given a police escort to
retrieve the child
TAC ¶127
No post-deprivation process
No mechanism was provided
to challenge or appeal the
CTW after it was imposed
—
Williams's own Threat Assessment contemporaneously found no actual threat (Q5: "No"
on terroristic threats). TTUHSC's own Threat Assessment Protocol, absent "Physical or Other
Credible Evidence," directs: "No Security Hold or Criminal Trespass is Issued." Williams's Q10
answer cited only "comments of assessors," "complaints about behavior," and "the post on X" —
none constituting physical or other credible evidence as the protocol defines it.
K-4. Fernandes Complaint Detail
Complainant's Own Initiating Behavior: The complainant repeatedly told Plaintiff throughout
the two-week psychiatry rotation that he could "say anything I want" to her because "she was
not evaluating us," and initiated personal communications witnessed by another medical
student. The complainant's formal report omitted this context, presenting the interaction as
entirely one-sided.
Administrative Origination: The complainant did not file the formal report herself. Conser
filed it as a "Title IX Mandatory Reporter" on August 1, 2023. Defendants' own exhibits cannot
agree on the filer (Exhibit 1: "Fernandez"; Exhibit 2: "Conser as Title IX Mandatory Reporter").
66
The investigation report confirms the complaint was filed "under advisement of SOM student
affairs."
Clerkship Director's Assessment: The psychiatry clerkship director, Dr. Amor Wail, told
Plaintiff that the complainant should have addressed any concerns directly before escalating to a
formal complaint.
Counter-Grievance Context: Before filing the counter-grievance that investigator Bates later
characterized as "retaliation" under TTUS Reg. 07.06, Plaintiff consulted five institutional
contacts — Conser, Trotter, Perrin, Erwin, and Title IX Coordinator Collins. None warned it
could be considered retaliation. Trotter, Conser, and Perrin processed the grievance without
objection. (Nov. 30, 2023 hearing request rationale.)
K-5. Wilson Escalation Pipeline
Two separate recordings capture Wilson describing the escalation process:
Recording 1 (mid-September 2023): Wilson was non-committal about whether any matter
could remain informal: "It is gonna get triaged potentially already a formal part. I don't
know."
Recording 2 (October 13, 2023): Wilson confirmed that every complaint was automatically
escalated: "anytime there is a patient satisfaction complaint against the student, it's
immediately forwarded above my level, always to the conduct committee."
In fact, none of Plaintiff's complaints were ever triaged to the conduct committee. They
were routed through the SPPCC and administrative processes that Wilson and Cobbs controlled.
Every interaction became a formal report; every report fed the "pattern" that was used to justify
escalation — but through channels the complainants administered, not through the independent
67
conduct committee Wilson described.
K-6. Suppressed Evidence
Item
Detail
Source
Family Medicine
performance report
Trotter specifically requested
a performance report from
Family Medicine regarding
Plaintiff. The report was
favorable — Plaintiff was
performing well. This report
was never presented at
hearing.
Pre-hearing records
Inpatient clerkship
evaluations
When a colleague sought
Plaintiff's inpatient clerkship
evaluations, the response
was: "Just spoke with Dr.
Cobbs and unfortunately
can't provide the other
clerkship evaluations from
inpatient." (FERPA Doc
1236.) Cobbs blocked access
to evaluations that may have
been favorable to Plaintiff
while permitting only adverse
evaluations to reach the
hearing record.
FERPA Doc 1236
K-7. Consciousness of Wrongdoing
Date
Event
Source
Dec 5, 2023
Bates included "do not
FERPA Doc 1143; TAC ¶120
forward" instruction in his
email acknowledging
Plaintiff was "removed... due
to his social media" with "no
threat to you specifically" —
demonstrating consciousness
that the dangerousness
characterization should not be
further disseminated
Jan 7, 2024
Forbes attempted to recall
68
TAC ¶121
her broadcast email ("one
student lighter... check his
Twitter"). The same email
announced Wilson's
promotion to Assistant Vice
Dean — linking Wilson's
career advancement to the
outcome she helped produce
(TAC ¶121). Forbes's recall
attempt is consciousness of
wrongdoing; the promotion
juxtaposition reveals the
reward structure
Nov 7, 2023
Forbes forwarded a
frightened student's email to
Williams and DeToledo
instead of correcting the
record: "I want to express
what we have been dealing
with but felt the platform
with the students wasn't
fair to bring up my
thoughts." Forbes had
thoughts she deliberately kept
from students she had made
afraid.
FERPA records p. 53
Within 5 days of Dec 27,
2023 Board determination
Before the Board's
determination had been made
public by anyone, an external
individual who had posted
600+ harassing tweets about
Plaintiff announced on
Discord: "we did it, Kevin
Bass' medical committee
voted to expel him." This
individual had a documented
pattern of posting leaks and
insider information about
Plaintiff. The use of "we"
demonstrates she considered
herself a participant; the
distinctive phrasing "medical
committee voted" mirrors
internal TTUHSC language
— not any publicly available
description of the process.
Public Discord post
69
K-8. Voluntary Restrictions Rejected
Plaintiff offered voluntary restrictions four times over three months. Defendants ignored
or rejected each one. (TAC ¶114.)
Date
Offer
Defendant Response
Sep 19, 2023 (6 weeks pretweet)
Leave of absence (FERPA
Doc 221)
Ignored
Nov 7, 2023 (3 days postremoval)
Written appeal: "I can extend
my commitment to
professionalism to social
media... I will ensure
misinterpretations are
impossible"; "open to
meeting or talking with
anyone who has a problem
with me"
Ignored; proceeded to hearing
Nov 21, 2023 (20 days prehearing)
Recorded meeting with
Proceeded to hearing without
Cobbs and Trotter: "I want to engaging
be a doctor by any means"; "I
know social media has played
a role in this"; "I'm certainly
willing to work on my part";
"I would give up a lot, a huge
amount, just so that I could be
a doctor." Cobbs: "searching
for pathways to move
yourself forward." Trotter:
"Your words are not falling
on deaf ears."
Jan 4, 2024 (6 days postdecision)
Written appeal to Vice
Provost Kruse: transfer to
Amarillo/Odessa campus,
leave of absence,
specialist mental health
support, implementation of
neuropsychological
evaluation accommodations
Rejected Jan 11, 2024
without explanation
If Defendants' concern was genuinely campus safety, Plaintiff's repeated, voluntary
surrender of speech rights and physical separation would have fully addressed it. The failure to
70
engage with any less restrictive alternative demonstrates that Defendants' objective was not
safety but punishment of the speaker.
K-9. Complaint-by-Complaint Summary
Four consolidated complaints and key admissions per complaint:
Complaint 1 (Fernandes — boundary complaint): One-sided investigation. The complainant
repeatedly told Plaintiff he could "say anything" to her, initiated personal communications
including asking whether Plaintiff was married (witnessed by another student) and sending heart
emojis, and filed a formal complaint that omitted all of this context. The complainant did not file
the report herself — Conser filed it as a "mandatory reporter." See K-4.
Complaint 2 (illness photos): Wilson testified at the hearing that "the absence itself is no
concern at all" and acknowledged she understood Plaintiff's reasoning, yet sought "suspension
or dismissal" eleven days later at Forbes's direction (TAC ¶141). Wilson had "never penalized
the students ever" for similar absences.
Complaint 3 (patient relationship): Wilson acknowledged in a recorded midpoints evaluation
that the ethical lines were "blurred," told Plaintiff he was "okay" since he had already consulted
Trotter, and confirmed Plaintiff immediately complied — then filed a misconduct report eight
days later that omitted every piece of favorable context and characterized the identical conduct as
"a breach in the TTUHSC SOM ethical policy."
Complaint 4 (tweet): A philosophical post about mortality that named no person, identified no
institution, and contained no threat. Defendants' own Exhibit 7 concluded the author was "not
indicative of... violence." Williams checked "No" on terroristic threats. See Tabs A-1, B.
The Board's own Findings letter confirms it found the testimony of Dr. Erwin and Dr.
71
Wilson "particularly relevant" — the same two officials whose recordings and notes contradict
their hearing testimony and who were principal complaint-generators in the underlying process.
K-10. Erwin Two-Faced Coaching
Dr. Erwin's private coaching notes and her contemporaneous communications with
Plaintiff:
Date
Private Notes (FERPA
Records)
Contemporaneous Messages
to Plaintiff
Aug-Oct 2023
"probably on the
" — made no specialist
referral
(assessment withheld from
Plaintiff)
Aug-Oct 2023
FERPA Doc 0083:
"intellectual narcissism,"
"paranoia"
—
Aug-Oct 2023
FERPA Doc 0083: "K has an
extremely high need to feel
significant"; "K is unable to
differentiate attention from
online followers and real life
relationships"
—
Aug-Oct 2023
FERPA Doc 0083: "Stop and
think about what you really
want. You love the attention
from social media but
recognize that a lot of people
in your real life have stopped
talking with you."
—
Aug-Oct 2023
FERPA Doc 0124: "He seems —
to be taking his First
Amendment rights to make
an idiot of himself"
Aug-Oct 2023
FERPA Doc 0124: "KB has
imbibed the cultural
atmosphere of conspiracy
theories"
—
Sept 7, 2023
(private characterizations
ongoing)
"You were lovely"
Oct 4, 2023
"I have come to believe the
incident with the first
—
72
clerkship, the incident of
intimidating Rachel Forbes
and the incident of sexually
harassing all stem from his
resentment"
Oct 17, 2023
(private characterizations
ongoing)
"I just want you to feel
supported"
Oct 29, 2023
(private characterizations
ongoing)
"I will not abandon you. You
have work to do my friend,
and it is the work of healing.
Your friend, Dr. Erwin"
Nov 29, 2023
"I consider a legal action
against my employer a direct
disregard of and
abandonment of our
friendship"
—
Dec 11, 2023
FERPA Doc 0132 (last saved
day of hearing): "Goal:
overarching goal is to find a
path for K to stay in med
school. Outcome:
moderating his behavior,
especially his
communications with
others."
—
Aug-Oct 2023
"It is my impression that
(assessment withheld from
these issues are more pressing SDS)
and that coaching may be
utterly ineffective if the
mental health issues are not
resolved." — professionalism
coach's own assessment that
the punitive approach was
futile without clinical
intervention; no referral made
K-11. Threat Assessment Protocol Violation
TTUHSC's Student Threat Assessment Protocol contains a mandatory decision tree:
73
Protocol Decision Point: "Is There any Physical or Other Credible Evidence (e.g., Injuries,
Witness Statements, Video Surveillance)?"
If Answer Is...
Protocol's Mandatory Outcome
Yes
After conferring with OGC, Chief of Police
requests security hold and considers criminal
trespass
No
"No Security Hold or Criminal Trespass is
Issued"
In Plaintiff's Case:
Evidence Category
Present?
Detail
Injuries
No
No injuries alleged or
documented
Witness Statements
(identifying specific
threatened person)
No
No witness identified a
specific person threatened by
Plaintiff
Video Surveillance
No
No video surveillance
captured threatening behavior
Q5 — Terroristic Threats
"No" (Williams's own
answer)
Williams checked "No" on
his own Questionnaire
Outcome: Protocol's mandatory pathway required no security hold and no criminal trespass.
TTUHSC imposed both — a security hold and a Criminal Trespass Warning enforced for twelve
months.
Williams's Q10 (Credible Evidence): Williams cited only "comments of assessors,"
"complaints about behavior," and "the post on X" — none constituting the "Physical or Other
Credible Evidence" the Protocol requires. The Protocol's own categories (Injuries, Witness
Statements, Video Surveillance) do not include subjective opinions or social media posts.
K-12. The Six "Substandard Evaluations"
The Board found "by unanimous vote" that six below-expectations evaluations
74
"constituted a further basis of action." Doc. 27 at 5. The record for each follows.
1. Dr. Diana Vo (Psychiatry — Aug. 1, 2023). Derivative of Complaint 1 (Fernandes). The sole
professionalism notation—"needs to understand professional boundaries"—traces entirely to the
disputed Fernandes situation. Three other psychiatry evaluators described Plaintiff as
"exceptionally well" performing, having an "excellent work ethic," and being "an excellent
member to the team." The clinical evaluation score for the psychiatry clerkship was
approximately 95% (SPPCC appeal statement).
2. Dr. Danielle Walker (Pediatrics — Sept. 18, 2023). Filed the same day as Wilson's illnessphotos misconduct report—September 18, 2023. Walker's most serious allegation—that Plaintiff
was found unaccompanied with a baby in a bassinet—was not Walker's personal observation;
Walker testified it was "brought up by the nursing staff." Walker testified under oath: "No, sir,
not at all... absolutely no outside influence."
3. Dr. Ngozi Eboh (Pediatrics — during rotation). Eboh characterized Plaintiff as "spaced
out," "uninterested," "took personal calls," and "argumentative and rude in front of patients."
Critical context omitted from the evaluation: Eboh herself told Plaintiff he could focus on the
patient he was most interested in—a
adolescent with psychiatric needs matching
Plaintiff's career interest in child psychiatry—and Eboh congratulated Plaintiff for eliciting the
patient's
. The "absences" and "time management" complaints trace directly to
time spent with that patient, with Eboh's own permission. On September 21, Eboh discussed
Plaintiff's evaluations with Defendant Wilson (sick-email grievance, pp. 5-6)—establishing interevaluator communication with the administrator coordinating adverse actions against Plaintiff.
This evaluation was produced during a period of simultaneous investigation by multiple
administrators, with documented inter-evaluator coordination—yet no accommodation or
75
supportive intervention was offered despite Erwin having assessed Plaintiff as "probably
" and Wilson having described the conduct as "a personality thing." (TAC
¶96.)
4. Dr. Bethany Nunez (Pediatrics — late Sept. 2023). Nunez's evaluation cited Plaintiff for
"not follow[ing] instructions" by contacting CPS regarding a
Aundra Conyer—the hospital therapist and
minor. In fact,
expert—directed Plaintiff to file the
CPS report and told him he had a legal obligation to do so. Nunez told Plaintiff he "didn't need
to"; Plaintiff followed Conyer's expert direction. The evaluation recharacterized compliance with
a mandatory reporter obligation as insubordination. The investigation was conducted by
Haynes—a urologist, not Pediatrics faculty—and approved by Kunkov, the Pediatrics
department chair (the department reviewing itself). Plaintiff was never interviewed. Nunez later
stated the evaluation had "nothing to do with social media"—a notable unprompted denial.
5. Dr. Suzanne Jensen (Pediatrics — Oct. 27, 2023). Jensen was a PGY-2 resident on a
different team. She never observed Plaintiff present, interview patients, or perform H&Ps—yet
evaluated all of these. Twenty-five specific claims in Plaintiff's grievance were either
unsubstantiated or based on secondhand information. Jensen's evaluation describes the same CPS
incident Nunez reported—characterizing Plaintiff's compliance with Conyer's expert direction as
"not follow[ing] instructions from the attending"—despite Jensen being on a different team and
having no firsthand involvement, confirming cascade contamination between evaluators. During
this rotation, the institution was pulling Plaintiff into disciplinary meetings, physically removing
him from clinical duties, then citing the resulting absences as professional deficiency.
Investigation suppression: When investigator J. Edward Bates requested the pediatrics
clerkship evaluations relevant to the Jensen grievance, Cobbs and Conser refused to provide
76
them (Doc. No. 1186: "Both Cobbs and Conser shutdown Bates on pulling the other evals").
Bates sought to interview Plaintiff (Doc. No. 1140: "wanted to set up time with student"); after
communications with Cobbs and Conser, no interview occurred. Bates also investigated the
Fernandes grievance (#1)—and never contacted Plaintiff for either investigation. (TAC ¶103.)
6. Dr. Aaron Thomas (Family Medicine — completed after Nov. 4, 2023). Thomas
characterized Plaintiff as falling asleep during the rotation. No faculty member or resident raised
this as a concern at the time; the characterization appeared only in the post-BOLO evaluation,
not in any contemporaneous feedback. Thomas was a member of a Christian study group with
TTUHSC official Conser—the administrator who served as a conduit routing complaints to
decision-makers (TAC ¶102, ¶105). Plaintiff was a member of the same group until the BOLO
was disseminated, at which point he was removed from the group's Snapchat—excluded from a
peer religious community as a direct consequence of the BOLO's stigmatizing characterization.
Thomas then submitted an adverse evaluation of a student he had just helped ostracize. (TAC
¶74.) Separately, Trotter had requested a favorable Family Medicine performance report—
Plaintiff was performing well—which was never presented at the December 11 hearing. (TAC
¶73.)
7. The SPPCC Warning (August 8, 2023). The SPPCC process is itself a product of the
retaliatory chain: a seven-person "coordination group" was activated the same day (TAC ¶70);
Forbes personally drafted the adverse letter used against Plaintiff, with at least five people
reviewing it before submission (TAC ¶69); Plaintiff's appeal was upheld for "lack of specificity,"
and within eleven days two new evaluations appeared containing unprecedented specificity —
filling precisely the gap the appeal had exposed (TAC ¶68). Erwin's coaching notes from this
period pathologize constitutionally protected commentary as personality defects (FERPA Doc
77
0083), and Erwin herself documented that coaching was "utterly ineffective if the mental health
issues are not resolved" — yet made no specialist referral and no SDS contact (see Tab A-3, Tab
K-10).
K-13. The Seven Grievances
The Board found six of Plaintiff's seven grievances "unsubstantiated" and cited this as a
basis for dismissal. Doc. 27 at 5. The seventh was substantiated. The factual record for each
follows.
#
Against
Investigated By
Plaintiff
Interviewed?
Outcome
1
Faculty
(Fernandes)
Bates
No
Unsubstantiated;
Bates
characterized
Plaintiff's
countergrievance as
"retaliation"
under TTUS Reg
07.06 (Nov. 7,
2023)
2
Faculty (Walker) Tenner
(Pediatrics)
No
Unsubstantiated;
approved by
Kunkov
(Pediatrics chair)
3
Faculty (Nunez)
Haynes
(Pediatrics)
No
Unsubstantiated;
approved by
Kunkov
(Pediatrics chair)
4
Faculty (Forbes)
Williams
No
Unsubstantiated;
Williams then
participated in
hearing relying
on Forbes's
original
allegations
5
Faculty (Eboh)
Bates
No
Unsubstantiated
6
Faculty (Jensen)
Bates
No
Unsubstantiated
78
7
Staff (Kim
Johnson, Assoc.
Dir., Student
Affairs)
Cobbs
No
Substantiated
under SOM OP
40.05; formal
apology issued
Oct 31, 2023 —
four days before
emergency
removal
In each investigation, the respondent was interviewed along with multiple additional
witnesses: the Forbes investigation involved five interviewees; Fernandes four; Jensen four.
Plaintiff — who filed each grievance — was never interviewed for any of the seven.
The institution was on notice of investigator conflicts. When Plaintiff objected to Nunez
as the Forbes investigator — because Nunez was a listed witness on the underlying report — the
designee acknowledged: "I do also see that he is listed as a witness on your report, which I
recognize creates what you were describing here." The institution proceeded with every
structurally conflicted assignment regardless.
TTUHSC's Interim Suspension Questionnaire (Question 8) characterizes Plaintiff's
grievance-filing as the "retaliatory harm": "Dr. Bass has filed numerous grievances against
members of the TTUHSC faculty and staff in response to their assessments of his professional
behavior and against members of the staff who reported his behavior. Those involved in the
processes were among those expressing a high degree of concern."
Four-Administrator Authorization Before Q8 Charge. Before filing the Fernandes countergrievance that Q8 classified as "retaliatory harm," Plaintiff consulted four different
administrators — Conser, Trotter, Perrin, and Erwin — as well as Title IX Coordinator Collins.
All four confirmed it was within his rights. None warned it could be considered retaliation.
Trotter, Conser, and Perrin processed the grievance without objection. (TAC ¶58.) The
institution then charged the very act it had authorized as retaliatory conduct — a textbook
79
institutional trap.
K-14. Disability-to-Dismissal Pipeline
1. Defendants' own personnel identified traits they associated with disability throughout 2023
— Erwin: "probably
" (Aug-Oct 2023); Wilson: "a personality
thing," "not doing things on purpose" (Oct 13, 2023 recording). These assessments are
documented in Defendants' own FERPA records.
1a. The professionalism score pattern undermines Defendants' "incapable of remediating"
finding in two ways. First, scores more than doubled between OB-GYN (75%) and
Psychiatry (~95%), with rapport scores more than doubling—consistent with
adaptation rather than character deficiency. Second, within Pediatrics itself, adverse
evaluations clustered exclusively in settings where Wilson had direct control or
connections (Walker on inpatient; Eboh, who discussed Plaintiff with Wilson before
filing; Jensen, a PGY-2 resident on a different team who described the same incident
Nunez reported). On outpatient—outside Wilson's sphere—Dr. Autum DeSoto wrote a
letter of recommendation stating Plaintiff "maintained humility and showed a great desire
to learn," identified a hidden psychiatric crisis in a teenager during a routine ADHD
follow-up, and "has a true heart for people and connecting to those in need and I know
that he will be a great physician in his chosen field." The patient's parents "expressed
extreme gratitude for Kevin and said what a great doctor he was going to be"; the patient
"asked when Kevin was coming back and if he could please be their doctor once he was
finished with his training." DeSoto spent approximately three times more contact hours
with Plaintiff than any other Pediatrics evaluator. No evaluations were collected from
Emergency Medicine or overnight outpatient rotations, despite evaluation forms being
80
sent — the record presented at hearing contained only evaluations from Wilson's sphere
of influence. The pattern is not uniform poor performance; it tracks Wilson's
administrative reach. (TAC ¶¶96, 201; see K-12.)
2. No Defendant initiated accommodation, specialist referral, or interactive process at any
point — despite Erwin's own contemporaneous conclusion that coaching was "utterly
ineffective if the mental health issues are not resolved" (FERPA Doc 0124).
3. The institution generated complaints and evaluations through processes with documented
defects at every level — evaluator coordination with Wilson, department selfinvestigation, cascade contamination between evaluators, and zero interviews of Plaintiff
across seven grievance investigations. (See K-12, K-13.)
4. Those complaints and evaluations were consolidated into a single hearing (Dec 11, 2023).
5. The one evaluation that would have provided clinical context — Wierzchowski's
neuropsychological assessment (Dec 6, 2023; TTUHSC-0000068) — was suppressed.
Gibson redacted the accommodation recommendations as "outside scope" and excluded
the neuropsychologist from testifying.
6. A passing grade was overridden to impose a Fail: Official records reflect that Plaintiff
"will receive a grade of Fail for his Pediatric clerkship despite the numerical
calculation resulting in a Pass." When Defendants override a passing numerical grade
to impose a failing one, the resulting "academic" record cannot serve as an independent
basis for dismissal — it is itself evidence of predetermined outcome regardless of actual
performance. This grade override occurred between the tweet and the hearing (TAC
¶¶172(c), 188(A)(6)), manufacturing an adverse academic record after the speech event
to strengthen the case for dismissal.
81
7. The Board found Plaintiff "incapable of remediating his behavior" (Defs' Ex. 8) — relying
on the testimony of Erwin ("probably
") and Wilson ("not
malicious," "a personality thing"), the same officials who identified traits they associated
with disability for months without initiating accommodation.
8. SDS issued no accommodation determination before the hearing, despite Plaintiff's
December 8 initiation — one partial business day before the hearing the institution itself
scheduled.
9. Defendants now cite the resulting "professionalism" record as independent grounds for
dismissal — a record generated through the defective processes documented above,
without the clinical context they suppressed, and without the accommodations they never
provided.
K-15. Plaintiff's Contemporaneous Appeal (January 4, 2024)
Six days after receiving the DeToledo decision, Plaintiff submitted a detailed written
appeal to the Provost documenting procedural violations while events were fresh. The appeal
addresses the following categories of due process deficiency, each of which is independently
alleged in the TAC and supported elsewhere in this Appendix:
1. Hearing time asymmetry: Each TTUHSC witness received up to 60 minutes of testimony
time (some exceeding this limit), while Plaintiff received approximately 30 minutes for
his own testimony. The Board and TTUHSC collectively spent approximately 80 minutes
questioning Wilson alone — against a stated 30-minute-per-witness limit — while
Gibson told Plaintiff "you have 20 more minutes" for all remaining questioning. Total
adverse testimony: approximately 10 hours over roughly 14 hours. (See Tab D-3.)
2. Physical, psychosocial, and cognitive impossibility of counter-testimony: After 10
82
hours of one-sided adverse testimony, Plaintiff's opportunity to present grievances was
rendered meaningless by exhaustion, cognitive overload, and the overwhelming negative
impression already formed.
3. Hearing structure changed without notice: Plaintiff was told by Trotter and Conser that
complaints and grievances would be addressed one after the other. On the day of the
hearing, Plaintiff learned the structure had been changed — all grievances were heard
only after all complaints against him — without prior notice. TTUHSC knew the actual
structure in advance.
4. Selective enforcement of rules: Gibson selectively enforced time limits, document
submission deadlines, and evidentiary rules — restricting Plaintiff while allowing
TTUHSC latitude on the same rules. Gibson's own Rules of Decorum required exceptions
be "applied equally to both parties."
5. Witness blocking: TTUHSC's legal team forbade Trotter and Wierzchowski from
testifying on Plaintiff's behalf. The campus ban was selectively enforced to prevent
Plaintiff from meeting prospective witnesses in person, while permitting campus visits
for all other purposes. Korinek declined to testify after reviewing the case documents and
concluding the process was unfair.
6. Denial of attorney representation: Plaintiff's request for attorney participation was
denied despite Wierzchowski's assessment that Plaintiff's
deficits
required "appropriate representation" and that he "should not be permitted to represent
himself."
7. Remediation failure: Neither the administration nor Erwin provided the feedback or
-specific intervention required for meaningful remediation. Erwin suspected
83
from her first session but never acted on this assessment, never referred Plaintiff for
evaluation, and used assessment instruments (MBTI, Enneagram) widely regarded as
psychometrically invalid.
This document demonstrates that Plaintiff raised every procedural objection now alleged
in the TAC within days of the decision — not retrospectively for litigation purposes. It is
available for production upon request or at discovery.
Source: Plaintiff's Appeal to Provost D'Agostino, January 4, 2024 (16,067 words).
K-16. Debt Collection Escalation Following Protected Activity
The financial harm from Plaintiff's dismissal is ongoing and retaliatory in timing. (TAC
¶¶149-150, 149C.)
Date
Event
Significance
Feb 12, 2024
TTUHSC canceled Plaintiff's
$20,118.11 scholarship and
assessed $24,316.56 balance
Initial financial harm from
dismissal
May 2024
Plaintiff disputed the balance
in writing
Dispute filed; TTUHSC did
not respond
May 2024 – Oct 2025
Balance dormant for 15
months
No collection activity during
dormancy
Oct 2025
Plaintiff filed TPIA requests
and formal requests for
disability accommodations
and name-clearing hearing
Protected activity under
ADA/§ 504
Dec 10, 2025
TTUHSC issued "Final
Account Statement":
$30,458.20 ($24,366.56
principal + $6,091.64
unexplained fees, ~25%
increase); referred to
Williams & Fudge, Inc.
collection agency
Escalation within weeks of
protected activity
Dec 15-18, 2025
Plaintiff filed timely written
disputes requesting itemized
ledger, basis for liability,
Formal dispute of escalated
amount
84
documentation for fees, and
scholarship reversal entries
Dec 19, 2025
TTUHSC deflected entire
dispute to collection agency
without addressing any
substantive question
Institutional refusal to engage
The temporal proximity—15 months dormant, then escalated within weeks of protected
activity—supports an inference of retaliatory motive. Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 68.
K-17. Zavala Fabricated Allegation
On June 21, 2023, Defendants Williams and Nunez presented a sexual misconduct
allegation against Plaintiff. On July 20, 2023, Forbes identified the source — Dr. Noelle Zavala
(OB/GYN Clerkship Director). Zavala then called Plaintiff directly and denied the event
occurred, speculating that "someone who wanted to hurt me might have fabricated it." Forbes
confirmed the denial. (TAC ¶172(d).)
Yet this fabricated allegation was still used in professionalism proceedings against
Plaintiff (FERPA Doc 0835). When Defendants knowingly incorporate a fabricated sexual
misconduct allegation into disciplinary proceedings after the source denies it happened, they
cannot claim their characterizations of Plaintiff were made in good faith.
Moreover, Zavala's own formal evaluation of Plaintiff — completed on June 24, 2023,
just sixteen days after her negative email to Forbes — rated Plaintiff's behavior as "meets
expectations." (FERPA Doc 0542.) The formal evaluation and the informal email to Forbes tell
opposite stories: the evaluation was the official record; the email was for the file.
K-18. Grade Manipulation as Predetermination Evidence
Official records reflect that Plaintiff "will receive a grade of Fail for his Pediatric
clerkship despite the numerical calculation resulting in a Pass." (TAC ¶172(c).)
85
This grade override occurred between the November 3, 2023 tweet and the December 11,
2023 hearing — Defendants manufactured an adverse academic record after the speech event to
strengthen the case for dismissal (TAC ¶188(A)(6)). When Defendants override a passing
numerical grade to impose a failing one, the resulting "academic" record cannot serve as an
independent basis for dismissal — it is itself evidence of predetermined outcome regardless of
actual performance.
The grade manipulation also undermines the academic-deference defense: if the
numerical calculation yielded a Pass, the override was not an exercise of academic judgment but
an administrative decision to manufacture a failing record.
K-19. Campus Ban Selective Enforcement — Witness Blocking
During the suspension period, TTUHSC universally permitted Plaintiff to visit campus
for every purpose except defense preparation. (TAC ¶128A.)
Purpose
Permitted?
Frequency
Daycare pickup/drop-off
Yes
A dozen times
Yes
Several times
Yes
Two or three times
No
Every request denied
pickup
visits
Meeting prospective defense
witnesses
The police officer who communicated the denial of witness-meeting requests reported
that the decision was made "at the behest of TTUHSC's lawyers."
The selective application demonstrates that the ban's operative function was not safety
but litigation advantage: Plaintiff was permitted on campus for personal purposes that posed the
identical "safety" concern Defendants cited for the ban, yet barred only from activities that would
have strengthened his defense.
86
This directly contributed to the 15-to-0 witness asymmetry at the hearing (TAC ¶148):
the institution recruited witnesses through ordinary institutional channels while Plaintiff was
physically barred from meeting prospective witnesses in person.
K-20. Fell Comparator Evidence — Disparate Treatment
At the December 11, 2023 hearing, Vince Fell — the institution's own Threat Assessment
reviewer — testified about how TTUHSC handled a prior similar case:
"[That case] was handled between school administrators and the student, and
this one actually turned out in the student's favor. And no one knew. Even
within the student body, nobody knew."
In contrast, Fell described Plaintiff's case as "not handled privately" but "escalated into
public domain."
Same institution, similar situation, opposite treatment. The differentiating factor is
Plaintiff's protected speech. (TAC ¶191.)
K-21. Van Overdam (TAMU) Comparator
In Van Overdam v. Texas A&M University, No. 4:22-cv-02791 (S.D. Tex.), a medical
student faced professionalism-based removal proceedings under comparable circumstances.
TAMU — a fellow Texas public university governed by comparable Board of Regents
oversight and state regulatory frameworks — provided every procedural safeguard that
TTUHSC denied Plaintiff. (TAC ¶192.)
Safeguard
TAMU (Van Overdam)
TTUHSC (Plaintiff)
Hearing officer independence
Independent; no financial
relationship
Gibson: $393K+ in OCC
contracts
Attorney participation
Permitted as communication
support
Banned ("not permitted to
speak")
Advance evidence disclosure
Full advance disclosure
Late/redacted evidence
accepted
Disability accommodation
Hearing postponed to allow
1.5 business days; no
87
processing
SDS completion
postponement
Grievance resolution
Grievance-first before
conduct proceedings
Grievances deferred to final
30 minutes
Outcome
Student retained
Plaintiff dismissed
Every safeguard that saved the TAMU student was absent from Plaintiff's proceedings —
despite both being Texas public universities subject to comparable regulatory frameworks. This
comparison demonstrates that TTUHSC's procedural choices were not compelled by regulatory
structure but were discretionary decisions that departed from the treatment provided to similarly
situated students at a peer institution.
K-22. Board "Retroactive Leniency" Admission
Defendants' own Motion to Dismiss states that the Board "determined that Dr. Bass's
diagnosis... was not a proper basis for RETROACTIVE LENIENCY." (TAC ¶44; Doc. 27.)
This admission establishes all three elements of deliberate indifference:
1. Knowledge: The Board knew about the disability.
2. Consideration: The Board considered the evaluation.
3. Conscious rejection: The Board consciously rejected accommodation as "retroactive
leniency."
Disability accommodation is not "leniency" — it is a legal obligation. By characterizing
accommodation as "leniency," the Board revealed that it understood the disability, had the power
to accommodate, and deliberately chose not to. The characterization also reveals the Board's
framing: that Plaintiff was seeking special treatment rather than equal access — a framing
inconsistent with the ADA's mandate.
88
K-23. Johnson Dossier — Mental Health Recharacterization and Newsweek Essay
FERPA Doc 1432 is a multi-page dossier retroactively compiled by a GSBS
administrator on Plaintiff, spanning 2020 through 2023: social media screenshots, external
complaint letters, tweet archives, academic records, and Plaintiff's Newsweek article on publichealth policy ("It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About
COVID and It Cost Lives," Jan. 30, 2023). A notation states: "a copy of the article will be filed
in his file." (TAC ¶133.)
On April 20, 2023 — seven months before the tweet — the same administrator sent an
"URGENT" request for Plaintiff's complete enrollment dates and research-lab history (FERPA
Doc 1219), confirming active dossier compilation months before any charged conduct.
Mental Health Recharacterization. The dossier contained mid-to-late 2022 correspondence
among Plaintiff's PhD advisor, GSBS Dean Schneider, and Associate Dean Blanton — copied to
senior GSBS leadership — in which Plaintiff's advisor characterized ongoing disputes over data
integrity in his laboratory as behavioral or mental health problems on Plaintiff's part. The
institutional response was not to address the research-methodology concerns but to discuss
requiring mental health evaluations for GSBS students as a condition of continued
enrollment — a discussion prompted by and directed at Plaintiff. This recharacterization of
scientific objections as mental health deficiency established the institutional template for the
"professionalism" framing later used to justify Plaintiff's removal. (TAC ¶133.)
Newsweek and Cabinet Officials. The Newsweek essay that TTUHSC catalogued in the dossier
was widely circulated within days of publication and shared by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jay
Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, and Vinay Prasad — who, at the time of this filing, serve,
respectively, as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Director of the National Institutes
89
of Health, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Director of FDA's
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. (TAC ¶133.) Defendants compiled a dossier on
and then punished the same speech that the nation's senior health officials amplified.
90
Dated: February 14, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Phone: 512-333-4092
Pro Se Plaintiff
91
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 14, 2026, I served this Appendix by the method of service authorized
by the Court and applicable rules on counsel for Defendants of record (if any have appeared).
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
92