Dismissed Academic Adviser Loses Suit Against University of Nebraska : Education: Woman alleges she was fired for investigating records of student athletes.

A federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the University of Nebraska in the case of an academic adviser who sued the school and top officials, claiming she was fired for investigating the records of student athletes.

The jury of four men and three women returned the verdict Monday in favor of University General Studies supervisor Dr. Donald Gregory and Vice Chancellor James Griesen in the suit filed by Mary Jane Visser, a 19-year employee.

University attorney David Buntain said the verdict vindicates Gregory and Griesen, “both dedicated public servants, and it shows the strength of our jury system that they were able to wade through eight days of testimony and 200 exhibits and come to a just result.”

Visser’s attorney, Thom Cope, said today he fears that the jury’s decision might make other UNL employees afraid to speak up for their rights.

“I believe Mary Jane Visser was right from day one, and I still believe that to this day,” he said.

Cope said he is still considering his options, but noted that he’s waiting for an expected ruling from U.S. District Judge Warren K. Urbom, who presided over the case, on the sex discrimination part of the suit.

The jury decided against her claim of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but that part of the verdict was advisory and not binding on any decision the judge might make, he said.

Cope said Visser still could receive back pay and her job back if Urbom rules in her favor on the civil rights matter.

Visser filed suit against the university shortly after her termination in September, 1988. She claims she was fired after she began investigating the academic records of student-athletes. University officials said Visser was dismissed for poor work habits, including tardiness, doing personal business on work time and unexplained absences.

In closing arguments last week, Cope told the jury that when Visser began raising questions about the athletic department, “the rules started changing.”

He said her concern with student athletes dated back to 1985 when she began seeing the same students in academic trouble over and over again.

In his closing, Buntain said Visser was not able to accept criticism.

Buntain contended that she started reviewing student athletes’ records as a vendetta against the university.

Buntain said he doubted the verdict would be appealed. “The issues were fact issues which would make an appeal difficult.”