Lawsuits filed by David Garafola and David Schwartz have been settled with the university.
Two lawsuits against Webster now in federal court
Two pending lawsuits for Webster University were recently transferred from the local St. Louis County court and filed with the Eighth District Federal Court of Missouri.
The first suit, Tracy McCarthy v. Webster University, was originally filed on Aug. 19 in a St. Louis County Court. According to the original lawsuit, McCarthy, an associate professor at Webster, sued for four counts of employment discrimination against the University. She asked for $25,000 in damages on each of four counts of employment discrimination.
The lawsuit was transferred to Missouri’s Federal Eastern Court on Sept. 16. In the most current text of the lawsuit, McCarthy is suing the university for one count of race discrimination, one count of sex discrimination, one count of disability discrimination and a count of retaliation.
The latest court records, obtained through the U.S. Public Access to Electronic Records System (PACER), show Webster University filed a motion to dismiss the case on Sept. 23, but no judgments have been entered since, according to PACER.
The second lawsuit, David Schwartz v. Webster University, was originally filed with the St. Louis County Courts on Aug. 26, but was transferred to Missouri’s Federal Eastern Court on Sept. 26. Schwartz, a former Webster University graduate counseling student, is suing the university on four counts.
According to the lawsuit, Schwartz alleges the university wrongfully dropped him from the MA in counseling program, causing him to incur in “significant losses in the form of delayed pursuit of education,” “delayed [his] ability to earn income” and caused him to incur “extensive attorneys’ fees, court costs, tuition, book expenses, study expenses, and related ancillary expenses.”
Schwartz is asking for at least $2,000,000 in punitive damages from the University.
According to PACER, on Oct. 5 United States District Judge Charles A. Shaw filed an “Order requiring a joint proposed scheduling plan” to be filed no later than Oct. 26. There were no more updates on this case on PACER as of Oct. 25.
Be sure to check out the Journal’s previous coverage and look for future updates