Gentilello v. Rege

What This Case Is About

Dr. Larry Gentilello, a tenured professor of surgery at UT Southwestern Medical Center, was removed from his administrative positions — Chair of the Division of Burns, Trauma and Critical Care and a named distinguished chair. He alleged the demotion was retaliation for speaking out about substandard patient care at Parkland Hospital. He sued his supervisors under § 1983 for due process and First Amendment violations. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that Gentilello failed to plead a constitutionally protected property interest in the chair positions.

The Facts

Dr. Gentilello was a tenured professor of surgery at UT Southwestern who also held two administrative chair positions. He alleged that after he raised concerns about “improper and illegal” patient care practices at Parkland Hospital, his supervisors — Dr. Robert Rege (Chairman of the Department of Surgery) and Dr. Alfred Gilman (Dean of the Medical School) — removed him from the chair positions in retaliation.

Gentilello filed suit in September 2007, asserting two § 1983 claims: First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment due process deprivation. The district court dismissed the First Amendment claim early on but allowed the due process claim to proceed. Later, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gentilello had failed to plead a constitutionally protected property interest in the chair positions and that they were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Gentilello also sought leave to file a supplemental complaint based on a subsequent retaliatory removal from trauma call rotation, which the district court denied.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that to state a due process claim, Gentilello needed to plead the existence of a constitutionally protected property interest in the chair positions. A property interest exists when there is a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to the position — created by state law, contract, or other independent source — not merely a “unilateral expectation.”

Gentilello’s complaint did not allege that any employment contract, university regulation, or state law gave him an entitlement to the chair positions (as opposed to his underlying tenured professorship, which he retained). Without a protected property interest, there could be no due process violation, and the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

The court applied the Ashcroft v. Iqbal pleading standard, noting that conclusory assertions of a property right are insufficient — a plaintiff must plead specific facts establishing the legal basis for the claimed entitlement.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Gentilello is important for understanding the scope of due process protection for government employment. Not every government job or position carries a constitutionally protected property interest. If you’re a public employee suing under § 1983 for wrongful demotion or termination, you must first establish that you had a legal entitlement to the position — typically through a contract, civil service rules, or a statute that limits the grounds for removal.

The case also illustrates that qualified immunity can defeat a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a clearly established right. If no property interest existed, there was no constitutional violation, and immunity applies.

Key Takeaway

Before bringing a due process claim for demotion or removal from a government position, you must identify the specific legal source of your property interest — a contract, regulation, or statute. A tenured professor may have a property interest in tenure but not in a particular administrative role. Without a legally cognizable entitlement, there is no due process right, and your § 1983 claim will fail regardless of how unfair or retaliatory the demotion may have been.