SWEENEY v. SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS (2024)

ORDER DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE

The Court, having considered the briefs filed in the above-entitled matter, together with the appeal record, including the missing Exhibit B offered at the administrative hearing and later submitted to this Court via stipulation of the parties, concludes that a summary disposition, pursuant to SDCL 15-26A-87.1(A), is warranted. As to each grievance, the Court has determined that the South Dakota Board of Regents (Board) did not err in its conclusions of law relating to the University's interpretation and application of the governing Board of Regents and University of South Dakota policies. The Court has further determined that the Board's findings of fact related to the matters at issue in this appeal, are not clearly erroneous.

As to the third grievance, this Court further concludes that even if Dr. Sweeney produced evidence supporting a prima facie case of retaliation, the University produced evidence of legitimate nonretaliatory reasons for his new work assignments, and neither the Board nor the circuit court erred when determining that Dr. Sweeney failed to meet his burden of proving that these reasons were merely pretextual. See Davis v. Wharf Resources (USA), Inc., 2015 S.D. 61, ¶¶ 27-30, 867 N.W.2d 706, 716-717 (applying the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis when reviewing an administrative ruling pertaining to a retaliation claim).

Because the circuit court did not err when it affirmed the Board's rulings on the issues raised in this appeal, it is, therefore,

ORDERED that a judgment of affirmance be entered forthwith.

Steven R. Jensen, Chief Justice

PARTICIPATING: Chief Justice Steven R. Jensen and Justices Janine M. Kern, Mark E. Salter, Patricia J. DeVaney and Scott P. Myren.